May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2013

Legislative Assembly of Alberta For the motion: Ady Fritz McFarland Title: Tuesday, May 17, 1994 8:00 p.m. Amery Haley Mirosh Date: 94/05/17 Calahasen Hlady Rostad Clegg Jacques Severtson head: Government Bills and Orders Coutts Jonson Smith head: Committee of the Whole Day Laing Sohal Dunford Langevin Stelmach [Mr. Tannas in the Chair] Evans Magnus Taylor, L. Fischer Mar Thurber MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd call the committee to order. As we have Forsyth McClellan West been mentioning, when we call the committee to order we only Friedel want one member standing in order to speak, and right now that presumably is the Government House Leader. Do you wish to Against the motion: speak? Beniuk Dickson Soetaert The hon. Government House Leader. Carlson Kirkland Van Binsbergen Collingwood Percy Yankowsky MR. DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Totals: For – 31 Against – 9 20. Moved by Mr. Day: Be it resolved that further consideration of any or all of the [Motion carried] resolutions, clauses, sections, or titles of Bill 19, the School Amendment Act, 1994, shall be the first business of the Bill 19 committee and shall not be further postponed. School Amendment Act, 1994 Point of Order MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is reminded that we have Sequence of Business under consideration first the amendments as proposed by the hon. Minister of Education, the amendments to Bill 19 which for lack MR. COLLINGWOOD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. of anything else we will call A-1, amendments 1, the nine-page document that was started earlier. Are there any further com- MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is not debatable, so I'm wonder- ments on the amendments? ing how you can have a point of order, which is the beginning of The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. a kind of debate. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Naturally, I MR. COLLINGWOOD: We adjourned debate on Bill 24. There have a few concerns about Bill 19. What a pity we have to push is a motion on the floor at this point in time from when we it through. They must be afraid of something. So let's talk to recessed at 5:30. these amendments. In 2.1 a board, a separate school council must also have the MR. DAY: Debate was adjourned. same faith . . . So obviously now this government has worked out a deal with the Catholic school system that makes them a bit MR. COLLINGWOOD: Debate was adjourned? happier than they were. However, what has it said for the public school system? Shouldn't they be given the same rights as the MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate was adjourned. Yes, it was. It's Catholic school system? If you look at the fact that the Catholics a good point. But, no, the debate was adjourned. That's are now allowed to tax part of their jurisdiction, why shouldn't agreeable? All right. the public schools be able to do the same thing? So naturally I do have a few concerns with these amendments' not addressing Debate Continued several of the issues of Bill 19 that make it a terribly bad Bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Government House Leader has I'd like to speak to some of those amendments that I would like made a motion, which I can't phrase in the exact same words, but to see. For example, we've had two Conservative governments it is in fact the closure motion. All those in favour of the motion that have failed to act upon the advice and preference of school as moved by the hon. Government House Leader, please say aye. boards that the government undertake a boundaries review during the past six years, set up a task force to do it right. But no, this SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. government just lowers the boom and says, "We'll do it this way." If the government's focus is really on children and MR. CHAIRMAN: Those opposed, please say no. communities, why is such a significant decision being forced through with insufficient analysis and without assurance that the SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. new structure will mean better education for our students? I don't think so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members. I'd like to address why this government hasn't looked at the jurisdictional cost issues that accompany a regionalization process. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell It seems again rule by regulation. How are these boards going to accommodate the expense of amalgamation, and who's going to was rung at 8:02 p.m.] take over other people's debts? Since regionalization must occur before August 31, is the minister going to force amalgamation? [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] 2014 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

Chairman's Ruling MRS. SOETAERT: Their administration has been cut, but Decorum teachers have been cut, and that means that the average class size has nothing to do but go up. [interjections] My, they're rude MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we know it's going to be a over there, but that's okay. I can quite take it. long evening. I wonder if we could listen to the speakers and give them their fair hearing. If you wish to discuss some other DR. L. TAYLOR: As if you never chirp. matter or anything else, please feel free to leave the Chamber after you've gotten clearance from your Whip. AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you're all heart. Hon. member. Debate Continued MRS. SOETAERT: I'm all heart; I know.

MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you. It seems that this government AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you're always so quiet. has failed to exercise its authority and responsibility in the past to provide a statute to discourage proliferation of new jurisdictions. MRS. SOETAERT: I'm always quiet when they're speaking. So now suddenly it's like we woke up and said: "Oh, my God. [interjections] We're pregnant. We have to marry up some of these boards." So we forced these marriages of boards. Shotgun marriages are Point of Order a tough way to start. It's a pity that we have done this with Decorum school boards. It seems to me that the Minister of Education has MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Edmonton-Norwood rising on a point reneged on his responsibility to help with the formation of these of order. new districts and give them guidelines, give them some money, some route to go that would guide them in forming some of these MR. BENIUK: Mr. Chairman, are we also allowed to fire back new districts. It's not like we're opposed to new districts, but shots like that when it's their turn? we're certainly opposed to the way this is being done, when you're forcing boards to amalgamate. For example, in my own MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The hon. member is asking whether riding, Spruce Grove Catholic and Stony Plain Catholic joined he can be equally impolite, and the answer is no to anybody in together, and this wasn't just forced on them by the Minister of that category. There is repartee, and there's also just plain Education. This was a process that's been in the works for a few drowning someone out. I indicated earlier that we would like to years, and instead, we're telling boards that they have to amal- see people, given the limited time that we have, let hon. members gamate by August. Now, Mr. Chairman, we know that's an speak when they rise to speak. amicable agreement that took years of consideration and co- Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. operation, and now we're just saying boards across this province Debate Continued will amalgamate come heck or high water by August 30. So I have real problems with that part. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My pleasure to be back here. 8:20 As I was saying, at least when I speak in my community, I will Now, I'd like to ask a question about the amalgamation of say I gave the government the best shot at trying to change Bill counties and if this has been addressed in the amendment. Will 19, but they wouldn't. I think this is the most drastic and most the government provide funds to assist the board of education in devastating piece of legislation that has ever gone through this splitting the assets with the municipal council? As far as I know, House, and it's a pity that we only have till midnight to discuss it. no funds are going to be provided to counties when splitting assets How will the Department of Education develop a valid and between the school board and the municipality. I know in my verifiable measurement of the percentage of Albertans satisfied own riding where the county of Parkland is involved, they will be with learning expectations, satisfaction of employees, and the concerned about that, and county boards of education involved in percentage of parents satisfied with their children's school? amalgamations will need to resolve internal financial dealings with Which begs the question: you know, are we going to now judge the municipality. So then the arrangements for disposition of kids by the mark they make on a test? Because I can teach any assets will need to be approved, and this is a major process that amount of material and force rote memorization, and the students I don't think they will have time to address by August 31. can repeat it back to me, but that doesn't mean they've learned I'd like to know how the government came to the conclusion, something. The key to education is teaching people how to learn, too, that there would be a significant reduction of administration because we have to be lifelong learners. By saying that we're costs and bureaucracy as a result of regionalization and what is going to test them more to prove they are learning more is truly the estimate of savings? I love the way the government goes on misguided thinking, because students don't learn by testing them about, "Yeah, it'll be all taken from administration." Well, I got more. a call just tonight before I came in here, and St. Albert Catholic Satisfaction of employees. Though this government has had a will be losing all their temporary staff and one permanent great deal of fun bashing teachers, I think that's a sorry state that contract. So if you're telling me that won't affect the classroom, we would criticize the people who have dedicated their lives to well, you're dead wrong because it's going to. educating our children. I think it's a sad statement that we say, "We're not making you take 5 percent, but in order to make some DR. L. TAYLOR: How much administration did they cut, of these cuts you're going to have to." We download that to the Colleen? Did they tell you that? school boards, and school boards that used to be very amicable and got along well are now faced with all these rules of Bill 19 and funding shortages. There they are, working out things with May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2015

employees that before were never, never anything to disagree control: if we get control of that tax dollar and if we get control about, and now they're all at each other's throats. of the superintendents and if we get control of the school boards, It'll be interesting to see what the percentage of parents is who well, that's what education is all about. I'd love this government are satisfied with their children's schools. You know, parents are, to just explain what they think basic education is, because to me to my knowledge, quite involved in their children's education. it's equal opportunity across this province for every child. As this Certainly, there've been school councils in every school I have government definitely starts tinkering with public education, pretty worked at, and that's been quite a few. Those parents have been soon we won't have a fair playing field for all our students, very concerned about their children's education and their quality because in many cases school is the only thing that gives kids a of education and have been very involved in their schools. But fair chance at a fair playing field. now the government's going to say you must have a school I think of a wealthy man who came up to me the other day. He council, and furthermore, the council has a right to talk about said: "You know, Colleen, I think private schools are fine. I where the money will go and how it will be spent and what don't see the big deal about Bill 19." His dad was quite ill. programs will be offered. Well, that concerns me because if you "Could your mom have afforded to send you to a private school?" have maybe two or three parents who have their own hidden He said, "Well, no." I said, "So you had the opportunity of agenda as to what they want to see happen at a school, we're public schooling." That gave him a fair playing field, and that going to have some schools that in no way reflect the needs of the man is a successful businessman because he had equal opportunity community but just the needs or the wants of a few parents. For to public education, that I really fear is being definitely attacked example, if a few parents said, "Phys ed is not necessary in the by Bill 19. school; let's cut it out," that's not for a few parents to decide. In a basic education plan I would like the government to This is something that has been proven, that with a decent phys summarize what a student needs to learn. I think the first ed program – physical education is important to the whole overall obligation to provide a solid core program fits with what students learning process. What a pity that would be if a few people need to know in the future. I just don't see this Bill as addressing decided that would not be necessary. that issue. With all these cuts and teachers being taken away and Bill 19 I have a few questions about the administrative role of elected totally rejigging the whole system, how could we ensure that trustees in the larger regional jurisdictions, and in many ways it teachers' assignments match their areas of specialization in small seems like they have to become full-time bureaucrats for this rural schools that employ a limited number of teachers? You government. The pity of it is that they feel they have lost any know, in many places it's always been difficult to staff small power they had. When you think of it, every one of us should schools with a full slate of specialists. I see amalgamation is know our school trustee. We elected him or her, and we expect helping some of these areas, but I would hate to see it close some them to be answerable to us for our child's education. Now small rural schools that are in many ways the heart of their suddenly we've said: "Well, the trustee doesn't really have a role communities. You know, we have this utopian ideal that if we to play. You can sit there if you'd like and talk about things, but amalgamate and marry all these boards, we will save all these the superintendent doesn't really answer to you. You aren't really dollars, and things will work out. Well, it's hardly addressed in accountable to those parents who have elected you because, well, we now have school councils" – which, of course, can be hijacked the amendments to Bill 19 or in Bill 19 itself, which is, by the by two or three very active parents who just happen to go that way, a pathetic Bill, if I haven't mentioned that yet. way. So trustees are sitting there saying, "Well, what role have Is choice a reality for students if transportation is not provided you given us?" Really what you've done is taken away the power to the school of choice? Which begs the question: how are we of an elected body that we as voters elected in there for that going to work these different areas, and what's going to be purpose. Now you've taken that away, and I have real problems involved? If I live in Sturgeon, can I send my child to St. Albert? with that. Will busing be provided? If I want my children to go to the Who are school councils accountable to? Presently elected Catholic school in St. Albert that is not offered in Sturgeon, does school boards – presently: this Bill will probably be pushed that money follow the student? How do we set up programs in a through tonight, regretfully – have a strong sense of community. school in June? Because by now high schools are setting up their They live in that community. They know the values of that programs for the fall, and if they don't know how many students community and work not just representing one school; they are going to be there, they don't know what programs they can represent an area so that all the trustees have to work together to offer. So how is this choice of jurisdiction hopping going to do what's best for that whole region. Instead we see here that we affect programs that can be offered and just the basic organization have different groups collected at different schools. "I want and running of a school? In fact, I see somehow these choices what's best for my school at the price of anyone else's school." may be – are they only possible for those with sufficient personal It's the old NIMBY syndrome: not in my backyard. That's a means? To cover those additional costs, are there additional pity, because that's going to happen with these councils. As our costs? Is transportation provided? With this hodgepodge we have trustees have less power, the councils have more power. I just in front of us, the regulations aren't in place, so no one really don't see how all three of those – the superintendent, the trustees, knows. Will access to the school of choice continue uninter- the councils, add the principal: who's steering the boat, as it rupted, or will access be renewable only by reapplication each were? It's a pity to me that this government has – can I use the year? If I send one of my children to St. Albert for grade 10, do word "emasculated"? – emasculated the trustees. I have to reapply the following year? Or am I going back to Sturgeon? Or, heck, I could even go to Spruce Grove, where I AN HON. MEMBER: You can. live. Being the Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, what a choice. MRS. SOETAERT: But there are some females, you know. I 8:30 can't really say that. They are our voted-in representatives, and I think we've done Which begs me to wonder: what is this government's concept them a terrible disservice with this Bill. I think they're feeling of basic education? I seem to think it's just the view of basic very much frustrated and helpless by what has happened. 2016 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time. this Act they get equal funding. So what happens to schools when you have an expanding area and another area of the province MRS. SOETAERT: You're kidding me. that's contracting in population size? Well, in conclusion, I'm darn proud that I've made 20 minutes 8:40 speaking to this fiasco of a Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have the situation that in the inner cities you need new MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. schools. Many of the schools in the inner cities are virtually museum pieces. They're historical buildings, not very functional. MR. BENIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I first of all What happens? How are they going to be replaced when you compliment you on having established within this Chamber a have equal funding to each school board per student? playpen in the northeast corner there. Mr. Chairman, there is a massive power grab here too. Not only is the minister intent on making sure he controls every single MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you challenging the Chair? penny and decides how that money is spent, with the school boards taking the flak; the minister also wants to make sure he has MR. BENIUK: I was pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that the fiasco total de facto control over the entire school system in every corner that's taking place in that corner I find to be not quite the of this province through the superintendents. He and he alone, or decorum of this House. he and his fellow members of the cabinet, will determine who is hired as a superintendent, who will be the superintendent in every Chairman's Ruling single school board jurisdiction in this province. If he and he Decorum alone is not happy, that person is gone. The school board may MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is in charge of that. think he's doing a wonderful job. The superintendent could be doing a great job, but if one man, in this case one man, doesn't MR. BENIUK: I realize that, Mr. Chairman. like him for whatever reasons, he is gone. That means there will be a great deal of pressure on the superintendent because his MR. CHAIRMAN: If you've got a point of order, rise on a point contract would have to be renewed every three years or termi- of order. If not, then confine yourself to the amendments before nated. The superintendent will be wise to follow the instructions us. of the minister and when there is a difference of opinion totally ignore that of the school board and of the local community. This MR. BENIUK: I will be speaking to the amendment and to the is not very democratic, but then neither is closure. Bill, as this apparently might be the last chance to address some As we look at this Bill, looking at the power grab, looking at very serious problems about this Bill. the tax grab, one must ask oneself: why would anybody want to, then, in the future be a member of the school board? For what Debate Continued they will be doing, those members of the school board, is being MR. BENIUK: This Bill personifies a lot of things. There is a the shield. When people criticize, it will be to the superintendent massive tax grab here of money that will be going to the provin- appointed by the minister; it will be to the school board. Elected. cial coffers from property taxes that in the past were collected at Yes, the minister has to approve the superintendent. The school the local level. Mr. Chairman, there is the fact that the school board will be getting the flak. The minister will simply say: "It's boards will no longer have control over the finances. They will not my responsibility. Take it up with the school board." be allowed once every three years to have a plebiscite to see if Whether it's in High River, High Level, or in Edmonton or they can raise 3 percent of their budget, but as they do so, once Calgary, there will be this insulation to protect the provincial again the tax grab is there. They raise the money, that 3 percent, government. As property tax levels rise, the provincial govern- for whatever project they might have in mind, but by this Act it ment will say, "It's not us; it's the people at the local level," even is the minister who will decide where and how that money will be though it is the provincial government. To restrict superinten- spent. So the school boards have virtually no power. They have dents to be appointed with the approval of the minister takes away no power. We will find that the school boards will be in a similar from the power of the school board. To insist that the minister situation as we now have with the universities, et cetera. When and his colleagues in the cabinet will have the final say on how the government cuts funding for a particular institution, they will much will be taxed from the property throughout this province say: "We're not responsible for the chain reaction that takes takes away also from local autonomy and local authority. To say, place. It's an autonomous body." Here they will say, "We're not "Oh, yes, we'll allow you to have 3 percent every three years by responsible for what the school boards are doing." The facts that plebiscite," but then to decide how that money is spent is not they have no money, they have to lay off teachers, increase the giving any power over financing to the local school board. This classroom size are not going to be, they say, their fault; it's going Bill is very regressive. to be the fault of the school board trustees, elected but with no One thing I must tell you, Mr. Chairman. In the short period power – no power – over how much money they have to spend. that I have been in this House, I now realize more than ever how It will be the provincial government that will determine the precious democracy is and how precious the Legislature is in the amount of money raised throughout this province. scheme of things to make sure we do have a democracy. For as The minister has indicated that there will be equal funding for power shifts to one man, to a handful of people in the cabinet, the each student. This is interesting because he has also introduced people of Alberta become more and more powerless. At the local some other concepts. So as we look at this equal funding, what level the school boards have no power. In the future perhaps the we have to ask ourselves is: is it equal funding on operating and municipal councils will have no power. Perhaps this is the first capital expenditures? What happens in areas that are expanding? of many interesting changes that will take place where power, in Are they going to get extra funding? Of course not, because by the form of massive taxation grabs, and authority shifts to the provincial government from the local levels. May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2017

It is interesting that the minister talks about and this Bill has character of this province within the cities and within the rural provisions for charter schools to allow people at the local level to areas, how is it going to be possible to have charter schools come have greater control over the education their children will be in, to have a voucher system come in and still claim that we will receiving. At the same time, he is taking total control over the have equal funding per student? entire educational process in this province. There is not going to 8:50 be one school, one class, one school board, one area of this province that is not going to be under the total control of the It will also be interesting to see how much greater the people of Minister of Education. The consequences of that will be im- this province will be paying on property taxes for education mense. All one has to do, Mr. Chairman, is take a good hard because of this Bill than they would have paid if this Bill had not look at some areas of the world – and I can name some – where gone through. It is one thing for this government to say they're the consequences of having so much power in the hands of one or not going to increase taxes and then go ahead and do it through two or five people has resulted in very severe consequences. property taxes, thinking people will not notice that now they control how much money is going to be raised for the schools of DR. L. TAYLOR: Name some. this province through property taxes. It's going to be a very interesting situation over the next few years. I am sure history MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair, hon. member. will record that when this Bill passed – and I am sure it's going to, because there are 52 Tories and only 31 of us Liberals in this MR. BENIUK: I gather you don't want me to respond to that House. The Bill in all probability will pass, and it will become comment. law. In years to come the people will ponder why the government Mr. Chairman, the issue here is the education of our young with its massive majority rammed this through. people and of adults. The issue here is how we are going to There is, Mr. Chairman, a very, very serious concern by many determine how we are going to educate our young people and people in this province about provisions in this Bill. This determine what type of material they're going to learn. Is it right concern, whether it is on charter schools, whether it is on the tax to give so much power over the education of every young person grab, on the administrative grab, and many other areas, could in this province into the hands of one man? Now you have have been resolved in a very parliamentary fashion by the minister massive input through the school system and through independent through dialogue in this House by accepting some of our sugges- superintendents over what and how things are taught throughout tions as we would have compromised and accepted some of his this province. This centralization is very, very disturbing. instead of going with closure, a closure to stifle debate and to The minister in his amendments has attempted now to start dealing with some of the concerns that were raised on this side of make a mockery of the very term "Parliament," being a place the House and by some of the school boards. He has started to do where people meet to debate and discuss. that, and I compliment him on that. As he starts to do it, whether Mr. Chairman, as I look at these amendments and look at this it was his idea or the people from the northeast corner there or Bill, I must tell you that I do believe very few people would want other people, suddenly the process has stopped, and we are going to run and be members of the school board, for to be a member into a closure period, which means denying debate. Parliament of the school board in years to come will be basically to accept was established as a means of communication. We are dealing, the position of being what I would call a masochist: getting Mr. Chairman, with a Bill dealing with education, and in a school blamed for things that you have no control over and knowing that system parliamentary procedure is also taught. I wonder how you're going to be blamed for it and not having any choice and often it is taught that closure is so common in this Legislature as being forced to carry out reductions in expenditure if the govern- compared to other jurisdictions around the world where parlia- ment decides to cut back on the money going into education and mentary procedure prevails. channel funds into other areas. What we have here is a shift of property taxes into the hands of DR. L. TAYLOR: Not often enough. the government without any guarantee that every penny that is raised will absolutely go into education, education as we now MR. BENIUK: The temptation to respond is very, very great. know it. You will have other things happening that . . . Mr. Chairman, the minister has attempted to overcome some of [interjection] What does that mean? Is that it? the problems created by this Bill, as were raised, for example, by the Catholic school boards. He can go one step further and MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the signal, hon. member, that you alleviate some of the concerns now being expressed by the public have three minutes left. school system. He can go one step further and alleviate some of the concerns about the massive centralization of financial and MR. BENIUK: Just three? Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, that administrative power in his hands. It would be a great step your watch is going fast? forward if he would do it, but judging from the closure motion, it will not happen. What we have here is what we're going to MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a timely question, but I'm sure it's not have for another three or four years, and the damage will be quite so. severe. Why he would want to dismantle an education system that was regarded as one of the best in the world – one of the best in MR. BENIUK: I don't want to imply anything improper, Mr. the world – to go on this tangent not of reform but of change Chairman, but is it possible that maybe Cypress-Medicine Hat boggles the mind. The minister, I'm sure, in the years to come may have speeded up the clock? No, I don't think so. I don't will ponder why he did what he did and think back if he did the want to make that implication now. right thing. Mr. Chairman, as my time is running out, I really would like Mr. Chairman, I really would appreciate it if that minister to stress that in years to come those who will look at this Bill – would explain how it will be possible to have equal funding and the people on the school boards, the parents, the students, the justice at the same time. When you consider the very diverse administrators, the superintendents – will see the flaws in it. 2018 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

They'll look at it and realize what a serious mistake the Tories Since significant elements of this education Bill are driven by made in this House when they invoked closure under the guidance regulation as opposed to legislation, that will make it far more of the Member for Red Deer-North, who is also the Minister of difficult, I think, for a number of groups to come forward to set Labour, and pushed this thing through at a time when there should up charter schools simply because the rules of the game will be have been more debate, more consultation on both sides of the known only by learning and doing, trial and error. I think that's House to try to find common ground. All the people in this the cost of having so much of a Bill embodied in regulation as province would have found this Bill to be a positive contribution opposed to having more set out in legislation. Now, I can rather than such a negative contribution to the education system. understand that this approach has been taken and embodied as it We are going into a course that the children, the young people has been in the amendments, because the government is not quite of this province will be paying a very high price for. I suggest clear in fact what it's doing in terms of the detail and is going to that all the property owners in this province will also be paying attempt to do this through regulation as opposed to setting it out a very high price as their property taxes skyrocket courtesy of the in legislation, basically learning by doing. Minister of Labour, who is also the Government House Leader, I think in fact it's counterproductive. The government would and of course the man who one day will be well known, as he is have been well advised to allow far more debate on these now, the Minister of Education, but I'm sure that in years to amendments, because it may have been the case then that the come his name will become very well known as the father of a legislative structure of this Bill could have been fleshed out in Bill that will be causing so much pain to the taxpayers who own more detail so that people who do want to take advantage of some property, to the young people, to all Albertans. of the provisions related to charter schools or home schooling My time is running out, and I would really like to carry on. I would have far more security in the knowledge that they were will try to rise again at a later time and allow one of my col- dealing with a structure that was in place, had been fully debated, leagues now or maybe somebody from the other side to rise. I rather than being subject to a high degree of ministerial discretion would very much like an opportunity to rise and speak for another through regulation. half hour, two hours, as I'm sure I'll have the time. 9:00 MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. Now, with regards to some of the other elements of the [interjections] Hon. minister, are you speaking? amendments as brought forward, I have to register very, very strong concern over the amendments that relate – I would think DR. PERCY: I hope that didn't cut into my time. it's section J; it would be on page 8 – to the shift in 1.2, where it says "is consistent with the principle that each board is entitled MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it doesn't. to receive the same amount per student for the school year." All members on both sides of the House, particularly rural members, DR. PERCY: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the motion should be concerned about the notion that it's the same amount of closure and the amendments. I'd like to first chart out a per student, because there are significant differences across this number of points. I was fortunate at 7 o'clock this evening to go province in the cost of providing schooling services. to a meeting of parents who in fact were debating the setting up Point of Order of a charter school. Questioning a Member Chairman's Ruling DR. L. TAYLOR: A point of order. Will the member consider Clarification a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, a clarification. The closure motion has already been moved and passed. So we're really on DR. PERCY: Not on my time, Mr. Chairman. the amendment now, not other debates. DR. L. TAYLOR: He obviously knows nothing about sparsity Debate Continued and distance, which is going to be included in the formula, and if DR. PERCY: I was fortunate, Mr. Chairman, that I was with a he would learn something about that, he wouldn't be talking about group of parents who were debating in fact setting up a charter rural members. He's an urban member who knows nothing school. There were members there also from the Department of about . . . Education. It was interesting, because the issue and debate came up about closure and the fact that they still felt that the amend- DR. PERCY: Mr. Chairman, that type of redneck garbage really ments – what was interesting in fact is that they had the amend- puts me off. We know as much about the rural sector as he ments to Bill 19 and the charter schools with them, so they had knows about the urban. been circulated relatively quickly. Their view was – at least some of them that I spoke with still had significant uncertainties DR. L. TAYLOR: Point of order. regarding charter schools in the system, because so much of the structure regulating charter schools was through regulation and at DR. PERCY: I mean, members of both sides of this House have ministerial discretion. Individuals investing considerable time and a very good idea. I was born in Banff, and for that hon. member effort really are unsure in a world where it's not in legislation, to continually get up and have a monopoly – a monopoly – on where it's at discretion, because it means that, you know, you knowledge of the rural sector is offensive to every member of this might be trying to catch a moving target. House from Calgary, from Edmonton.

[Mr. Clegg in the Chair] MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Cypress- Medicine Hat, you didn't get up on a point of order. You got up May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2019

on a point – you wanted to ask the hon. member if he would The reason we have elected school boards, Mr. Chairman, is to entertain a question. The answer is no, not on his time. have local concerns, local interests paramount, and one would Did you have another point of order? expect superintendents to reflect those local concerns. As it's now been set up, not only then is taxing authority going to be central- Point of Order ized under the dome, but ultimately it's going to be the minister Parliamentary Language and the deputy minister, Reno, who will have significant control DR. L. TAYLOR: Yes, a point of order, Beauchesne 459, in over the appointments of superintendents. Who are the superin- regards to calling members opposite rednecks. He certainly tendents going to respond to? The person that has the veto. So knows nothing about rednecks, coming from the campus of the I think this is a significant erosion of local authority, and I think University of Alberta, and knows less about rural Alberta. He the government has not gone far enough in these amendments to knows the area a little bit up here, just over here. That's the only address the concern of school boards that their concerns are area university professors live in, a very protected, rarefied paramount. atmosphere. I was one for 10 years, and I was smart enough to So what do we see with this Bill? We still see that the elements get out. He wasn't smart enough to get out. of centralization that were in place with Bill 19 as it stood are still in place with the centralization of taxing authority and ultimate MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The debate's closed. control over superintendents. There has been some weakening but The hon. member. not enough for my liking. I'm also concerned when I read this Act, Mr. Chairman, that Debate Continued there's in a sense a ready-made court case here. I'm just looking DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, if for the specific point. I guess it would be on page 8 again, you look at section 1.2, the issue is that they "receive the same section 1.3, where there's the phrase, "and subject to the rights amount per student for the school year," and that is the principle under the Constitution of Canada of separate school electors." that is set out here. I think it should be set out very clearly, in The presumption is that every piece of legislation that is brought fact, the differences that exist both within the urban sector and the forward is in accord with the Constitution. That goes without rural sector in providing school services. As a general principle saying. Nobody would ever bring in a piece of legislation that I far more preferred the term "equitable" as opposed to "equal," says, "This supersedes the Constitution of Canada." It's very because I think equal can be interpreted in a way that could work clear that there's still ambiguity with regards to this point, and to the disadvantage of some of those school boards which through this is in a sense an invitation for a court challenge. There's no no fault of their own have widely dispersed students, high other reason why this phrase would be here. I would defy the transportation costs . . . [interjection] Although the member can hon. members on the front bench to come forward with any other continually interject, the bottom line is that these things are not set legislation where they explicitly say "and subject to the Constitu- out through legislation. tion," because it is implicit that every piece of legislation that's What is set out in legislation, Mr. Chairman, is the principle of passed here is subject to the Constitution. Why you actually have equal funding, and that could easily be interpreted in a way that to say it I think suggests some real concerns in this regard. could work to the disadvantage of some rural and some urban Again, this is another argument for not invoking closure on this students, some Liberal and some Conservative constituencies. It's Bill. Have it sent to a reference, have it examined by lawyers, independent of the party stripe. I much prefer, then, a focus on because six months down the road we do not want a court case. equitable funding that clearly takes into account that there are We do not want this can of worms to be opened again. There's differences in the cost of providing these services and it should be a clear case for such a challenge to occur, and in the absence of taken into account. So this amendment, in fact, I certainly have those reviews being tabled by the government, I think we have to concerns about, because as I say, the focus should be on equita- assume a priori that there is legitimate concern and that this is ble. It should in a sense be enshrined that there are these types going to be opened up further down the road. of differences, and then it should be set out very clearly the The major concern I have with these amendments, Mr. mechanisms by which these differences will be taken into account. Chairman, is that they in a sense move us away from the notion As it stands right now, we have to rely, then, on ministerial of a level playing field. Initially with the unamended Bill 19 all discretion, regulations to ensure that the disadvantages of geogra- parties were treated equally unless they opted out. Now we have phy are taken into account. Again, the object is to ensure that the concerns of the separate school boards being addressed, and any student, regardless of where they live, gets access to a addressed in some detail, and the separate school boards say, superior education. "Although we do not like Bill 19, we in fact think this is the best Another element of the amendments that I certainly have of a bad lot, and this is better than a poke in the eye with a concerns with deal again with the issue of superintendents. The pointed stick." In a sense many of the boards have grudgingly amendments have weakened somewhat the discretion which the accepted these amendments as the best they can get. minister had in dealing with superintendents, but I still think in Now where is the input of the public school boards? Are they fact superintendents should be appointed by the boards, fired by going to now ask how this affects their position vis-à-vis the the boards, and there should not be a role for the minister in separate school boards? Again, what legislation should always do either approving or in fact having a veto on the renewal after is enshrine the notion of a level playing field, that no group is three years. I think if you're going to get school boards that are advantaged over another group. The way this Act has been going to function, they must have control over superintendents, amended it's now clear that there have been distinctions made for because the reality is that superintendents know, then, that the the separate school boards in terms of opting out, but there are not ultimate decision of whether or not they're renewed rests with the similar provisions then, Mr. Chairman, for public school boards minister, and that will in a sense erode the responsiveness to local to opt out. I can only ask: what is wrong with allowing public concerns and local boards. school boards to opt out of this legislation? Why not give them 2020 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

exactly the same rights that have been accorded to separate school When I go through these amendments, I'm struck by the fact boards. I cannot see any problems with doing that because it just that much of the debate in second reading – and some private strikes me then as allowing the various groups to have equivalent members did discuss the Bill. rights. As it is now, it's no longer a level playing field. One set of boards has a different set of rights than another. Although the MR. DAY: And the front bench. hon. minister shakes his head, I mean, it is clear that one group can opt out and another can't. That to me is a significant DR. PERCY: And some members in the front did discuss the difference. Although he may say that none wish to opt out, they Bill. We on this side of the House brought forward many should have the right to do so if they choose. I would think that concerns in second reading that have not been addressed in any of when I look at this, this takes us away, then, from the notion of these amendments. What we see is, in a sense, a band-aid a level playing field between both separate and public school solution to the concerns brought forward by the separate school boards. boards without any reflection about the implications of that band- Also when I read the amended legislation, it does nothing to aid solution for the public school boards and whether or not it's address our concerns of basically government by regulation. The a level playing field. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that many of whole purpose of a Legislature is to pass legislation to set out the our concerns in this regard could be easily addressed were the rules of the game. government to bring in a subsequent amendment which would allow public boards to opt out and give them exactly the same sets 9:10 of rights that have been brought forward in these amendments AN HON. MEMBER: A framework. which will be driven through by closure by midnight tonight. I would certainly hope that the government would take it as a DR. PERCY: Well, again, Mr. Chairman, you know, an friendly amendment that they would introduce such a move to interjection has been made that legislation sets out the framework. allow the public boards to opt out, because I cannot understand, I believe legislation sets out very clearly the rules of the game and Mr. Chairman, why they would object. If the public schools do to the extent possible removes the role of discretion by ministers not want it, they won't use it, but at least they should have the through order in council, because once you enter a world where choice of dealing with it. there's discretion and there's no recourse or accountability in Another issue I have concerns with which is not dealt with in legislation, that really does erode the legislative authority of this any detail in these amendments is the whole issue of consolidation Chamber, and it also then reduces the accountability of individual of school boards and the mechanisms by which these shotgun MLAs, whether they be private members or opposition members. marriages are going to be effected. If there's one thing that is I think the role of legislation is to set out very clearly the rules of now leading to increasing concern about those boards that have the game, and this Bill does not do it. It's like many other pieces not yet come to an agreeable set of linkages, it is that they're of legislation that have come to this Chamber; it basically going to be basically driven to a geographical partnership that may provides a skeleton with no flesh, no bone, and no muscle. It not be in their best interests. I was saddened to see that the allows, then, all of these other elements to be enacted by the minister in fact did not bring forward any other types of amend- Executive Council and then through fiat, through order in council, ments that related to the issue of consolidation, because again, imposed, and I think they should be debated in the House. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support regionalization. I mean, Again, amendments I would like to have seen would be there's real scope there for some savings in efficiency, but there amendments that would have provided much more detail on the is still the issue of effecting it on an equitable basis. role of these parent advisory councils. In theory it's a very good So as I look at the amendments, I have a number of concerns idea, but much of their role will be set out through regulation. that I would hope that the hon. minister would address before They'll be possibly appointed by the minister or elected, and debate ends tonight so it will be part of the record. My concerns there's just too much room in this Bill, particularly because of then relate to: why have they not given up the ability to appoint these amendments, that leave too much scope for discretion, too superintendents and allow the full accountability to rest with the much scope for order in council. We can have a fundamental board, who are elected? Why centralize that much power with the restructuring of our educational system going through order in Department of Education? It's local people who elect the board. council and regulation as opposed to being debated in this It's local people who then make the decision whether or not the Legislature. superintendent is performing adequately. It's not the role of the That is why I am deeply saddened by the fact that the govern- Minister of Education or the deputy minister to say who's been ment has brought closure in, because I think there is time and the good, who's been bad. It's the people that pay the school taxes, need for a discussion of restructuring the school boards and the the people that elect the trustees that have that right, and that right school system. The issue, then, is how we best do it and how it's should remain, then, with the trustees. set out in legislation and how all of the stakeholders have their say I have concerns, then, about the high degree to which this Bill in terms of the restructuring. Now they're not going to have their still is fleshed out through regulation as opposed to legislation. I say. The mechanism will be lobbying the minister, lobbying the would argue that if we allowed the stakeholders to have further deputy minister. It won't be in fact talking to MLAs or debate in input, amendments could be brought in that would set out in this Legislative Assembly. We cannot, except through the vehicle legislative terms the roles of parent councils, for example, rather of question period, address any of the changes that would come than allowing the high degree of discretion that presently is set out through order in council. Even if we do debate it through here. question period or try to get an answer as to why and the The issue of the level playing field between separate and public consequences, we would not get an answer. It's been brought school boards. The hon. minister and government may have gone home very clear to me, Mr. Chairman, why it's called question part of the way to alleviating the concerns of the separate school period and not answer period. May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2021

boards. They've only heightened now the concerns of the public Mr. Chairman, the nature that these amendments have been school boards as to their sets of rights. brought to closure tonight and in fact the way this whole Bill has Thank you, Mr. Chairman. been brought to closure I find upsetting. To no degree is this a democratic process when closure is invoked on what is a basic Bill MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- for this province, a Bill that's going to be changing the nature of Ellerslie. education forever in this province. It will be very hard to reverse any of the problems encountered by this Bill. Many of those MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak to problems could have been unravelled and discovered and worked these amendments. Some of them I don't have a great deal of through had the minister been prepared to enter into proper debate problem with, and they are improvements on what is truly a very and proper negotiations with the stakeholders in this situation. I flawed Bill. But I do have some concerns that I was certainly find it just completely appalling that the minister would make a hoping would have been addressed prior to this Bill being brought complete mockery of the parliamentary process. to closure. I have to say that it brings to mind a quote in a book by a very The first concern I have is with 2.1 in section 8, where they great American author, which I found an appalling situation when talk about: I read it then. It applies to this government and to the way they A separate school district or a division made up only of separate have moved forward on this Bill by invoking closure not only at school districts, by resolution, may require that the parents of second reading where in fact I hadn't had a chance to speak yet. students enrolled in a school operated by the board who are members I wanted a chance, an opportunity to speak to the principles of this of the school council must also be of the same faith. Well, what happens here with mixed-faith marriages? Are there Bill in second reading and to represent the interests of my going to be exceptions? Who is going to decide what the constituents because they had serious concerns that they wanted to exceptions are, and how are the rules going to be enforced? I be raised, and I was not allowed to do that because closure was also have to ask here: what about people in situations like mine? invoked. Now here we are again with this happening. It reminds I'm not a Catholic, and yet I send my children to a Catholic me of this quote. I would suggest that everyone pay attention to school for what I find are very valid and concrete reasons. It's this one. Prior to 1933 the public schools had been under the not specifically addressed in this amendment, and I think that's jurisdiction of the local authorities and the universities under that something that certainly should be. of the individual states. Now all were brought under the rule of the minister of education, just like what's happening here. It was 9:20 he who appointed the rectors and the deans of the universities. The next one that I have a concern with is under 28(5), where Now, this minister is appointing the superintendents. And he also A parent of a student enrolled in a school shall not request that the appointed many of the other leaders, and that may be what in fact student be enrolled in another school during a school year unless the happens here. board operating the other school consents. This is a book that was written by William Shirer, and it's The Well, I find it very unusual and quite undemocratic that a parent Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, ladies and gentlemen. I find a can't decide in fact which school they're going to send their child few too many similarities in this book and in the process being to, and they have to get permission from the board. I'm very undertaken by this government to make it a comfortable situation surprised to see an amendment like this in this Bill. for me. [interjections] Section 22 is being amended under (a) and (b) with regard to the three-year period for the superintendent appointments. It Point of Order doesn't lay out in here what the criteria for the reappointments are Abusive Language going to be, and I would think that would be a fundamental step MR. DAY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you know there are to be taken here. If it's not addressed here, then I think that certain things that are allowed and a certain latitude that is given another amendment should have been brought in, and I wonder if when people are speaking. But citing Standing Orders 23(i), and that's going to be happening now in light of the hour and in light you can throw in (h) and (j) also, when somebody starts to use a of closure being invoked. comparison in our society in Alberta today about another person The concern with 155(3) when it talks about how the moneys or a group following certain procedures and comparing them to are going to be paid to a board or to the Alberta school founda- the Nazi party, I think that is going to a very gross extreme. I'll tion. They're going to be now remind people that the Nazi party stood for the National Socialist in equal quarterly instalments on the 15th day of each of the months party, of which members opposite, if anybody has certain policies of March, June, September and December in that year. more closely aligned to that . . . Why wouldn't the money be coming in June, when it in fact is Well, I'm taking issue, Mr. Chairman, with a very gross insult collected? Will there be any allocation or consideration for here, and I know the member got caught up in her own speaking. interest or additional penalties on here? What this looks like is I know she's just waiting for the opportunity to show her loud- that actually the school boards might in fact be penalized. mouthed colleagues that she's a reasonable person and that she's They're not going to have the full use of the funds, which is about to withdraw that comment. something I think quite separate and distinct from what currently occurs. I was also concerned with 155(6) where it talks about MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: On the point of order. A debt referred to in subsection (5) may not be recovered by suit at Okay; hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. law unless permission to enter suit is granted by the Minister. Well, what kind of discretionary use is this? Who is going to MS CARLSON: Yes, in the interest of freedom of speech and benefit from this and who isn't? What criteria will the minister the democratic process, I have every right to take direct quotes use to decide who will be able to enter into a suit and who won't out of a book that directly patterns itself after the motions of this be able to? Again it's not addressed, and it certainly should be government. before we proceed. 2022 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

DR. WEST: May I speak to this motion? MR. DAY: Mr. Chairman, 23(d) points to the very relevant section here in terms of it being a point of order when members MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We don't normally do that, read copiously quotes from various documents, including books. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Thank you. We could spend all There's good reason for that. I'm not knocking her ability to evening on a point of order. We've had both sides speak. write or not write a speech, but standing and reading from a book Hon. Government House Leader, on the point of order. I is out of order according to 23(d), and I wonder if we could have didn't hear the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie specifically state a ruling on that. Standing Order 23(d) is very clear in that a that any member on any side of the House was – and I don't want person may quote from time to time certain relevant sections of to use that word. However, she was using a comparison of that. a document, but to stand and read verbatim page after page, line So the point is that the hon. member didn't use a direct quote that after line is somewhat of an insult, and it is in violation of 23(d). any member is entitled to whatever. She was just using it as an example. It reminds her of that example. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you like to The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. speak on the point of order? Debate Continued MS CARLSON: I certainly would like to speak to that point. It MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I find a actually says here under 23(d): speaks copiously. I would be number of other parallels which I would like to discuss that the quite happy to pass on to the minister for his perusal afterwards steps of this government, this direction that they're taking, bring the little footnotes that I made in the book. I am not reading from to mind. I think when I share them with you, you will see that the text of the book. I have made several little notes which this is in fact a very close parallel. address the key issues that show the parallels between this The next step, ladies and gentlemen, was that great teachers government and that government, and I think it's important for were fired or retired, great teachers like Einstein. Now, early people to hear this. retirements in this province, great teachers who have the time and wisdom and knowledge on their part are taking early retirement MR. DAY: Mr. Chairman, with respect, she's still talking about or being laid off. Same parallel as what happened with great parallels, which was already ruled on. I accept your wise ruling teachers there: fired or retired. Layoffs of first- and second-year on that, but that's not the point of order. The point of order is teachers: those who are the best and brightest, who are our future that it is out of order to stand and read bedtime stories from some and our children's future in this province are not being rehired. book she dusted off in the restaurant and brought down here. I find distinct parallels here. You're not allowed to do that, and we'd like a ruling on that. I would just like to let you know what happened in that case. [interjection] No. He hasn't ruled yet. In that case 2,800 people were fired in the first five years of their regime. We're talking about professors and teachers. Now, I MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, I haven't ruled yet. Because would like to know if the government is also going to follow this we let the hon. Government House Leader, would you like to parallel, and if so, they should let the teachers and professors of make another . . . [interjection] No, no. Hon. Member for this province know that those are their intentions, and they should Edmonton-Ellerslie, would you have something more to say? let the parents in this province know. So the result here is quite comprehensive, hon. minister, and it MS CARLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting would be well worth it to take a copy of this document and read that that minister would find the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich it and see where you are going. to be akin to a bedtime story. To make him happy, I'll close the 9:30 book and finish my debate off my notes. MRS. MIROSH: And history repeats itself. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Section 23(d) clearly states that MS CARLSON: "History repeats itself," as the minister without you can in fact refer to and make quotes from Hansard or any portfolio stated, and you'll see that there are many parallels here book. However, it has to be a judgment call, and I'm very happy in the path that you are following. that you have put the book to the side. I know you're going to The result here was that after six years the number of university continue without reading any more of that. students dropped by more than one-half. So what happens to the Debate Continued education of the province as a whole when university enrollment drops by 50 percent? What's the direction and the nature that the MS CARLSON: To carry on with the bedtime story of this province is going to take thereafter? This decline in enrollment government, what happened in that situation was that academic at the institutes of technology was even greater. So in an age standards fell to an all-time low, and this in fact jeopardized the when research and technology, when developments in telecommu- national economy. Well, when we take a look at the employment nications are the major employers in this province, we see stats in this province right now, where we currently have 68,000 parallels here which look like . . . people in this province who want to work and who can't find a job and when in fact 60 percent of those people are women, I find Point of Order the direction of this government as it relates to this Bill and these Reading from Documents amendments to be out of line and out of order and unreasonable MR. DAY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. and certainly a road to destruction. What happened in the final analysis in this situation: the real MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: A point of order by the hon. final twist to education here in the Third Reich came in the Government House Leader. establishment of three types of schools. May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2023

Point of Order changes that are happening in these amendments and in this Act Relevance when we talk about different classes of school systems now, when we talk about the changes you're making to the separate school DR. WEST: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. boards and not letting those same rights go to the public school boards. You're changing the format for charter schools, and MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Municipal you're changing the format for other private schools. Affairs. I want to relate it to one final comment, and this is what happened in the Third Reich when they brought in three types of DR. WEST: Mr. Chairman, I've had absolutely enough of schools. They brought in one for the brightest, one for those who reference in this debate, and I quote 459 of Beauchesne, rele- could pay, and one for everyone else. I want to know where our vance. To keep relating back to 1933 and to the policies of a children fit in this today, and I think that's relevant debate here. regime that slaughtered 6 million humans, that many ancestors of mine and of people of this Assembly laid their lives on the line to 9:40 stop – I've had just about enough of relating that to this Bill and MS CARLSON: Now, I have some specific concerns that my the policies in 1994 in Canada and Alberta. I go back one more constituents want addressed tonight in addition to those that were time, that you keep using that reference in this House. I can also brought here. Will the Department of Education provide the state 23(i) on that. You're inciting this House to disorder. I funding to ensure that the government directive to implement site- don't have to stand here and take that in a debate on an education based management by 1996 is achieved and that those to be held Act in this province, knowing the history of this country, of this accountable under this new model have sufficient training? Well, province, and the people that died overseas to get rid of that damn certainly the least that should happen here is that we should begin policy that was written in those days by that government. to be given what types of professional development programs [interjections] principals may require to carry out their roles and responsibilities. It hasn't been addressed here, but it's certainly an issue for my MS CARLSON: All you need to do is follow the text in this constituents out there, and I think that before this government can book and you will see the identical parallels. invoke closure, invoke that undemocratic process, they should address this issue. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. [interjections] Order. With the expanded management role of principals will the Hon. member, have you any statements on the point of order? government now remove them from the ATA bargaining unit? This is a very real concern for people out there. The School Act MR. DAY: On relevance. You haven't even talked about the defines a principal as "a teacher designated as a principal or amendments. acting principal under this Act." In 1991 the Edmonton public school board applied to the Labour Relations Board to have MS CARLSON: There's absolute relevance here in terms of the principals and other school administrators excluded from the direction these amendments and this Bill are taking and this bargaining unit because they exercise managerial functions. Then government invoking closure not once but twice on this Bill. the school board's application was denied as the Labour Relations [interjections] Board held that it was without jurisdiction to interpret another Act. On appeal, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Roslak found MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. The hon. Minister of that the labour board did not have the jurisdiction in this particular Municipal Affairs has a good point of order. We try and be very matter and referred it back for a decision. The Alberta Teachers' lax with relevancy. When there's a closure motion on the floor, Association appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, and we allow that relevancy to broaden, but we aren't going to allow Chief Justice Fraser found that the School Act defined the it to continually get off the amendments. We are not going to bargaining unit and that the Legislature intended that all teachers allow it. It has no relevancy whatsoever. So, hon. Member for have the right to bargain collectively unless excluded by mutual Edmonton-Ellerslie, you lose your turn unless you get on to some agreement under section 77(2). This decision was not appealed to relevancy on the amendments. the Supreme Court of Canada. If the school administrators are to be excluded . . . MS CARLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly wouldn't want Point of Order to lose my turn; would I? Relevance Debate Continued MR. SEVERTSON: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MS CARLSON: Certainly when we're talking about the appoint- ments of superintendents, if that in fact happened at another point MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Innisfail- in time, at another point of history on this planet, then I find it to Sylvan Lake. be relevant in this House in the manner of keeping with freedom of speech. It's a very undemocratic process, which we have seen MR. SEVERTSON: Beauchesne 459, relevance to the amend- several examples of in this House tonight and in the past week, ment. I don't see anything in the amendment about appointing the and I refuse to be a party to that. principals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak to the amendments. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Ellerslie on the point of order. MS CARLSON: I spoke to the amendments when we spoke about superintendents. We spoke about the changes that are happening MS CARLSON: We're talking about school governance here, in terms of the Catholic and public systems here. I'm just about and this is clearly addressed under these amendments. I find it to finished with the parallels. These in fact are addressed here in the be completely relevant. 2024 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Well, the hon. Member for about the massive power grab we have built into this Bill. People Innisfail-Sylvan Lake has brought another good point of order. I need to know what's going to happen to that money. They need was listening very carefully to the hon. Member for Edmonton- to know that it's going to be spent where in fact it's being said Ellerslie. When she kindly put that book away, then she certainly that it will be spent. was talking about the amendments, but I think the hon. member Of course, it brings up again the concern of the discretionary has strayed a little ways away from the amendment. I'm very use of funds. How is it that all of a sudden, whereas schools used confident that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie will get to get their money at the beginning of the year, it's now going to back to the amendments. be doled out in quarters? They have no access to those funds in terms of investment or proper allocation, and it's certainly not Debate Continued addressed here. It's not laid out what the government's role is MS CARLSON: Speaking to the amendments specifically, Mr. going to be in those funds and, in particular, how it will be Chairman, I want to go back to the superintendent issue here and requisitioned for any of those other areas that are discussed here. how that relates to what their roles and duties are going to be This one was specifically brought up by one of the principals in under this new section. I wonder, because it's not spelled out my school, which is an urban school. His concern was for the here at any point, if in fact the government has decided what the rural schools and how that was going to affect them. I think current role of the superintendent is as compared to what it's that's a very relevant matter to be addressed in this debate here going to be under this amendment, and I speak specifically, for tonight. your reference, to sections 22(a) and (b). What's going to happen What assurances does the public have that these funds will not be subject to political whim or expedience? Now, particularly, now with these new superintendents? Are they going to have a given the past track record of this government and the way that role similar to the current superintendents, or is it going to be they've done business in terms of handouts of loan guarantees to quite different and distinct? It's something that certainly isn't a selected few and a complete lack of ability or response to full addressed here. I find it very surprising that we can go forward disclosure in terms of what they do with lottery dollars, how can with this Bill before these major holes in the road are filled. I we expect them to act any differently when they have full power think it needs to be addressed this evening if in fact we go and full control of the school funds? I think this is a very valid forward with closure, and I would expect the Minister of Educa- concern, and I challenge the Minister of Education to stand in this tion to stand up and defend his position. House tonight and defend that position and tell us exactly how I wonder if the government understands that the superintendents these funds are going to be spent and that he will guarantee this now serve as the chief educational officer as well as the chief House and put it in writing that they will not be available for administrative officer and that they act as a vital link to the political whim or for his expedience. community, parents, employees, and the board, as well as the Now, if the government persists in this move to full funding of Department of Education. Now, how is that role going to change education and seizes the boards' requisitioning authority and their when all of a sudden these superintendents are under the direct ability to respond to the variant costs of local collective agree- control of the minister? I think it's certainly an issue that needs ments, why would the government not assume the full collective to be addressed. Will locally elected trustees under this new bargaining role? Again, this is an issue that hasn't been addressed mandate that we've got here and the government-appointed and - here, and we speak to that particular section of the amendment, contracted superintendents be able to develop into a strong 155(3), that deals with funding. I think it's very relevant in the leadership team? You know, when you've got all the responsibil- debate tonight, and it's certainly something that's got to be ity and none of the authority, who's really in charge, and who addressed by this House. Now, I can't understand, when we have really calls the shots in the day-to-day operations? That's all of these huge, substantive concerns, that they're not addressed something that hasn't been addressed here, and it needs to be by this government. addressed here. It needs to be addressed before we go forward 9:50 one more moment on this Bill. The government refuses to acknowledge that these are in fact MR. DECORE: Mr. Chairman, I stand to speak to the amend- valid concerns for all people in this province. They believe they ments brought to a major Bill that affects Albertans in a most can just go ahead and make changes willy-nilly and hope that with profound way, amendments that have been, I think, poorly the minor adjustments they've got in these amendments, they're thought out, poorly crafted, taken in context with the whole of the going to appease the general public, that they're going to appease School Act and the process that's gone on in the development of the school boards, that they're going to appease the parents. But that Act, the new Act and the new amendments: a sloppy piece guess what? It just isn't going to be good enough. It's not good of work and poor content that's come with it. enough for our students and not good enough for the future of this Mr. Chairman, I think it's necessary to do a little bit of a province. I think the government will find this out when they historical review of what's happened since the autumn session. move forward on this Bill and people really start to feel the This review is necessary to show how bad these amendments have implications of all of these changes and exactly how they're going become and how badly the School Act changes will affect to impact their children and the future of this province. Albertans. We start in the autumn session with a minister who Let's talk about how this funding is going to happen again. I fumbles his way through that session not knowing whether the bring you back to 155(3) – heaven forbid, I would hate to be cuts to his portfolio will be 5 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent. I remember him looking to the Premier and, when the Premier called on a point of relevance – where it talks specifically about was in China, to the Treasurer to find guidance to know exactly how the school boards are going to be funded. What specific what the plan would be in terms of the cutbacks to his portfolio. guarantees will be provided that all local school requisitions will If there's an area where Liberals distinguish themselves from be accounted for and used only for public and separate schools? Conservatives, it is in education, because during the election we Well, there's nothing that's been addressed in this Bill which said, yes, there had to be efficiencies in education from K to 12, meets those needs at all. It's a huge concern when you're talking there had to be efficiencies in postsecondary education. But after May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2025

all of those efficiencies were effected, we calculated and we still universities and colleges. But we've gone from being first. calculate and we still say that resources have to be added to Slowly, slowly that erosion has taken place under the Conserva- education and not taken away, because the key to economic tives to a point where we're now seventh in terms of support for success for Alberta is in the education of its young men and students compared to other provinces in Canada. Mr. Minister, women. that's an embarrassment that you should be most unhappy about Well, we saw the fumbling and the mumbling that the minister and most unhappy to hear about. When these cuts are effected, gave us in the autumn. We saw no plan, and we saw the cruel Mr. Minister and government, Alberta will be last in terms of way in which he dealt with Albertans. We were told by the assistance to students across this province compared to other minister and the Premier and the government that they were going provinces in Canada. Now, how could you be proud of that? to go out and consult with Albertans. Roundtable discussions How do these amendments help and show and strengthen and were set up, handpicked so that there wouldn't be any embarrass- nurture the kind of education system that's needed when you ment, I guess, created for the minister and for the government, strike at the very heart of education and its concept, and that is and rushed through. local autonomy? I remember attending some of the meetings that were organized When I said that education has been made strong in this quite independently from the minister, quite independently from province, it's because this is a diverse province. It has agriculture the government. I remember in particular the meeting that was that's very different in the southeast than in the northwest. It has held in Calgary. That was a meeting where Calgarians were people that I think are different from the north to the south. It asked by teachers and parents and students to come forward with has people that are different from city to city. Local autonomy ideas because, remember, the minister had challenged Albertans has been allowed and has given us a diversity of strength, because to come forward with ideas on how the system could be made local school boards could determine what different teaching was more efficient and how expenses could be taken out of the needed, what different courses were needed, what different education system. I sat for three hours at that meeting in Calgary programs were needed, and what different resources were needed and with the other 3,000 or 4,000 people listened to good idea to make that particular region or city or area strong in comparison after good idea after good idea on how change could be effected to the rest of Canada. What we have in these amendments is a reduction of that local autonomy concept, a watering down, an that could give efficiency, that could reduce costs. But where did erosion of that local autonomy concept, and it flies in the face of it lead? Nowhere. good education and strong education. The minister tried to challenge Albertans into having them Mr. Chairman, we were chided by the minister today suggest- define what basic education should be. That cruel process ing that I hadn't read the amendments. Now, a word about the suggested that there should be cutbacks in a number of areas that timing of this process. We've spoken about the cruel process of infuriated Albertans. But I listened at that Calgary meeting to dealing with Albertans and asking them for suggestions and then some suggestions where in terms of defining basic education, good ignoring them. But there's another concept that's important, and suggestions were made, where Calgarians said: "I think you can that is parliamentary debate, parliamentary input. The role of an get rid of this, and I think you can get rid of that, but please opposition is to look at law and to look at amendments, and we government, please Minister of Education, don't touch this area, see eight pages of amendments that the minister brought forward don't touch this area, and don't touch this area, because these are yesterday evening. integral to a basic education for Albertans." I then attended a meeting in Edmonton where the minister MRS. HEWES: Fourteen amendments. listened to similar ideas and similar concerns from 4,000 Edmontonians. I see nothing in the amendments or in the School MR. DECORE: Fourteen amendments on eight pages. The Act or in the plan the minister has brought forward that in any minister gives but one day, less than a full day of debate to an way gives credit and credence to that consultative process that he opposition party to show the weaknesses of the ill-conceived plan asked Albertans to participate in. He so cruelly stabbed them in and the poorly set out amendments that have been brought the back by ignoring their concerns and their desires. The forward. And the minister . . . [interjection] Well, you have minister shakes his head, and I regret that the minister attended shown weaknesses, Mr. Minister. You showed weaknesses right those meetings and heard good suggestions and took those from the fall session, when you didn't know what your plan was, suggestions nowhere. when you didn't know how much you were going to cut back, to I attended meetings in my own constituency where parents took your weakness in dealing with the Catholic school board, telling time with their children and teachers took time from their busy them that you had a deal with them at one moment, going back to days to come to a meeting to discuss how the system could be your caucus and scuttling them the next day. This went on and made more efficient, how some cutbacks could occur in certain on and on and on with the Catholic community. Do you think areas, how the system could be a better education system. They that's fair? Do you think that's reasonable? Do you think that's took the time to send those suggestions to the minister, and I see the sort of activity that a minister should involve himself or no evidence tonight or last night or the night before or the day herself in? I don't think so. before or the month before of any of those suggestions that have 10:00 come from Albertans to perfect the system. In fact, the amend- ments fly in the face of everything that Albertans are proud of. I think that you owe a certain sense of dignity to your portfolio, Albertans are proud of the fact that they had an education to your ministry in the way you deal with people. You went system when Premier Manning and Premier Lougheed were forward with the Catholic community, and you made a deal with Premiers of this province. In terms of support and guidance and the Catholic community through its lawyers in saying: I'll take nurturing, the government saw and gave as its number one this back, and I'll get it through caucus. You couldn't get it priority resources to that education system. It was no accident through anywhere, in the same way that you couldn't tell us in the and is no accident that Alberta created the best-educated work fall whether you were going to cut by 5 percent or 10 percent or force in Canada and created some exciting new ventures at its 15 percent. Mr. Minister, you seem to be taking your orders 2026 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

from somebody else, either from a Treasurer who is your guide we're going to end up with I think a very mediocre education or a deputy minister. That's what I fear most: that this deputy system. That is going to be your legacy, Mr. Minister, that you minister really has had the last laugh, that he wasn't able to do his leave with Albertans, a legacy where superintendents are at your dirty work with the previous minister, but he had a softy. He had beck and call, a legacy where you decide. I guess superintendents a softy, and this time he was able to pull the wool over the will do whatever you want when you wink and nod at them, minister's eyes and get exactly what that deputy minister wanted. because if they don't do what you want, you'll get rid of them. What the deputy minister wanted and got in these amendments You'll make it clear to them on that score. A legacy of a tax grab was a diminishing of the local autonomy by taking superinten- that's been unique because that particular system of being able to dents, for example, and having those superintendents become meld and adapt in Alberta will be lost, and a system that I think completely at the mercy of the minister and the deputy minister, will fly in the face of constitutional right: you're going to pay the to put them at the mercy of the ministry. If the minister doesn't price for that, Mr. Minister. The sad part is that Albertans are like the superintendent, the minister just has to flick his fingers going to pay the price for poor work, poor crafting of legislation. and that superintendent is gone. For cause, for whatever cause, Mr. Minister, of all the legislation that I've seen in this Assembly the minister – albeit the minister now has to give some reasons in in the five years that I've been here, this has got to be the worst, writing – can get rid of somebody that is a thorn in his side. and the process that's been employed to bring us to this time of We've seen this government and the way it deals with the people imposing closure is the worst process that I've ever seen. The of Alberta. I suspect there are going to be a lot of thorns in the hoax on Albertans, the cruelty to Albertans that you've effected side of the minister and a lot of superintendents that get their has been more than unreasonable, and I feel sorry for Albertans walking papers because the minister isn't going to like the way for what you've done. local government is administered by those superintendents. That's bad legislation. That's a bad amendment, and the fixing that Point of Order you've attempted to do, Mr. Minister, has I think just made things Decorum worse. In the final analysis the minister has the ability to fire, to MR. BENIUK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Is it now the keep superintendents dangling on a string to do whatever the decorum of the House that people can do that? I notice you were minister wants, whatever bidding he wants. The superintendents watching him and didn't do anything. Is that permissible now to I guess are expected to cozy up and do whatever the minister do that? I'm referring to the fact that the Member for Calgary- wants. That flies in the face of local autonomy. Shaw had two cups on his ears. Is that proper decorum now? It flies in the face of local autonomy when you take away the [interjections] power to tax. You got into trouble with the Catholic school board because I think in the end your own lawyers told you that you MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. On the point of order. were in trouble with constitutional matters, and I think you're probably going to be in trouble with the public school board MR. HAVELOCK: Mr. Chairman, thank you. If I could because this tax grab in giving some concessions to the Catholic respond. I was so interested in listening to the comments of the community now has created a very discriminating situation in hon. Leader of the Opposition that actually they helped amplify terms of public school boards. I think, Mr. Minister, you're his comments. I found them to be quite helpful, so thank you. going to pay the price for sloppy work, sloppy planning, sloppy [interjections] drafting, and sloppy amendments that you've brought forward to this Assembly. MR. BENIUK: If that decorum is proper, and if that's the Mr. Minister, I look back at seven weeks of turmoil and case . . . acrimony that you created amongst Albertans. Chairman's Ruling MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Edmonton- Addressing the Chair Norwood, you're correct in – I really can't judge how people look. Just because he's got big ears, I can't help that. I was MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, about to send a note to him and tell him to please remove the cups please go through the Chair. Your eyes have stared specifically from his ears. He wasn't handsome. at the minister for several minutes, and you've never come through the Chair once. It's strictly against the rules of this MR. BENIUK: Mr. Chairman, this is a serious issue. Are you House. Would you kindly address your remarks through the saying that it is proper decorum to have cups put on one's ears in Chair, please. this House the way the Member for Calgary-Shaw did? [interjec- tions] MR. DECORE: Well, I'll try to look at you from time to time now, Mr. Chairman, but I can't ignore the minister because he MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. [interjections] Order. sits there and laughs at a number of the comments that I've made. Absolutely not. It is not proper, and I was about to write a note [interjections] Hon. House leader on the government side, I don't to him and ask him to remove them, hon. member. think it's funny when you stick it to Albertans the way your The hon. Member for Highwood. colleague and your government is sticking it to Albertans on the education system. Debate Continued Debate Continued MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll endeavour to gaze fondly in your direction from time to time as I go through MR. DECORE: Mr. Chairman, a very cruel game has been my notes. played on Albertans in terms of the amendments, in terms of the I was interested in some of the comments that have been process of bringing forward ideas. I think the price will be paid, offered, presumably on the amendments, which I think are because instead of having the best education system in Canada, May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2027

important amendments when we only some days ago heard various cial government that is charged with the responsibility for people saying: "Mr. Minister, why are you beating up on the education under Canada's Constitution as brought to us by the Catholics? Why are you doing this? Why aren't you doing BNA Act and reaffirmed in subsequent Acts. something else?" Then when the minister begins to make some I think that retaining the authority to approve the appointment changes, that's wrong too. of superintendents and the authority to approve the reappointment It seems to me that the key principle of the Bill is reinforced by of the superintendents on a three-year basis is an important the series of amendments: equity for school boards, equal per change. It's important to keep that linkage in there that they are student funding from the local tax base for all Alberta students, responsible to the Minister of Education as well as to their board. and even allowing separate boards to opt out of the Alberta school Some people say that you can't serve two masters. Well, anybody foundation fund and go to local requisition of their ratepayers. who's been either a principal or a superintendent knows that you The principle still stands for all Albertans that wealthier boards don't serve two masters; you serve many masters. You have the will be assisting less wealthy areas of the province. That community, you have the board, you have the department, and principle is maintained. If we think of the wealth that we have you have, if you're a superintendent, the whole teaching body. shared in this province for many years, for decades, particularly It's an onerous position. It's a well-respected position. This just after the discovery well in Leduc when oil revenues went to great lines in law that there is a connection between what that superin- heights, eventually reaching 50 percent of the tax revenue of this tendent permits in the way of educational activity in their domain province, we all shared in it. So in this Bill and in these amend- and what the provincial laws and regulations are. So I think the ments to the Bill we're looking at refinements of trying to ensure amendment here is a useful one. that all Albertans, whether Catholics or members of the general Some people talk about tax grabs. It's not that long ago that we public, will get equal access to the money. I think that's got to had members of the association to which I have belonged most of be a very worthy goal. my adult life, the ATA – I can well remember them talking about those wonderful days back in 1970-71 when the provincial 10:10 government paid 90 percent of the local costs of education. I I was concerned about the comments being made that somehow have had the occasion to hear many members of the opposition in Alberta soon will be last in financial effort of all the provinces. the previous Legislature refer to those great days. Well, if 90 When you think of it, Mr. Chairman, we are 10 provinces and percent is good, why isn't 100 percent a lot better? That's what two territories. There are three net taxpaying provinces in this this Bill achieves, and that's what is important: that these country: Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario. We can hold amendments support that as well. up, as some hon. members do, Newfoundland as having a great, I feel there are a number of areas that do, however, give me high effort. When we know such a high percentage of their some concern. I look at section 15, and I'd hoped that maybe budget in fact comes from those other three provinces, you either it could be amended or more properly clarified that the wonder what the effort is. Some hon. members appear to have regulation is going to take out some of the questions that one forgotten the recent news broadcasts from other parts of Canada. might have. We look at section 15(c.1): "ensure that students in Newfoundland is now undergoing a teachers' strike. Students the school have the opportunity to meet the standards." Is this have been dismissed and are sent home and do not expect to putting upon the principal, then, that somehow he's making a return for the months of May or June. Nova Scotia has a strike guarantee? It's just a question. How do you measure opportu- vote in hand. What I'm trying to say is that although we are nity? That has to be a highly subjective matter, so when it's in predicting all kinds of gloom, whether it be from The Rise and the law, it's sometimes a little bit disconcerting. Fall of the Third Reich or from the rise and fall of Newfoundland, One of the questions that I have. When we have section 15(b), we seem to think that all the other provinces are somehow going striking out the words "or provide for the evaluation of," this to retain their places and only Alberta is going to move. Well, a limits the principal to doing the evaluation. We could have, I'm number of other provinces are looking at their funding of all of sure, situations in a school that might be a problem. If the their areas of expenditure and looking at how they can bring that principal is directly responsible for evaluation of all teachers in in hand with their ability to pay. So I think it's a bit premature the school, this appears to leave no alternative open to the board until we know what those budgets are all about to indicate that in situations where it would be necessary or advisable to have Alberta is in fact going to be 10th out of the 10. another individual besides the principal evaluate a teacher. The I think the importance of the superintendency shows a willing- teacher and the principal may have a conflict. There may be ness on the part of the minister to hear criticism of the original other reasons of perceived bias, or it may simply be as we have proposal and to make some adjustments to it. I think that's an in . . . important thing: to set out your goals, show how you're going to Chairman's Ruling reach them, and when some people draw to your attention that Decorum there are some difficulties there, then to make the necessary adjustments in the amendments that have been proposed to meet MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We're those helpful criticisms. Many of us went to school when the always reasonable around the House, but on both sides of the superintendents were completely directed by the Department of House we've got little conferences going. Nobody can hear Education. After all, the superintendents came in in the late '30s anybody else. We're going to give every member of this House when we got a consolidation into the school system over much of an opportunity to speak their words, so if we could just have a rural Alberta. That system served us well until 1970 when we little order, we can continue on. switched and went to the locally appointed superintendents. The hon. Member for Highwood. Because there are some difficulties with that present system, this 10:20 Debate Continued is, I think, an important move to make a joint responsibility. Ultimately, the superintendents, although not clearly in law, were MR. TANNAS: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was in fact responsible to the department. It is of course the provin- saying, there could also be an apparent conflict. Many of our 2028 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

rural schools have husband and wife teaching on the same staff, there's been enough debate. At the earlier stages of this Bill he and either one could be the principal. Then they would be in a said there'd been enough debate and that's why we have to have sense obliged to evaluate their spouse in a professional situation, closure and we'll allow more debate at committee. Now we know and if it's that restrictive, I see a problem with that. The question that's not the case, because he stood up in this Assembly at almost is: who is the principal ultimately responsible to? the earliest opportunity to call for closure again, and that is When we get into some of the parts on the school council, there unacceptable. are some concerns there. Perhaps it will be resolved with the Keep in mind that during the debate on this Bill, that same regulations that come, but the question has come from trustees as minister, this Government House Leader, has used words like well as teachers as to who has paramountcy. Is it really the phony faced, duplicitous, hypocritical to describe members of the board, or would it be the school council? What happens when the Liberal opposition who have been trying to reflect the legitimate principal, who often is the meat in the sandwich between parents concerns of constituents around this province in opposition to this and teachers or between teachers and the superintendent – here is Bill. Those Albertans know, as we know, that this Bill is wrong, another area, where they could now be between the board and the and the Government House Leader and his colleagues on the front council, and that's a problem. bench can't hide behind name-calling to try to make this Bill less The word "implement" in section 17 referring to the school wrong. councils: there may be direct conflict, then, between the principal Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour threatened, in fact, to and the school councils and also with boards. If we look at the tell all Albertans about what members of the Liberal caucus were legislation and in there, there are a number of areas where it says saying about this Bill and about these amendments. He stood and "shall," we assume, then, that this is enabling legislation. "Shall" he threatened us, you know, and I wish he would – I can't wait is a bit of a strong word. However, if we take into account that for him to circulate the debates on this Bill and this amendment, in many instances it says "shall" and later on "subject to the because then Albertans will see the hypocrisy of that member and regulations," then the regulations become the instrument as to of this government. This minister, if in fact he does circulate how we will define the roles of school councils and maybe at that these things, will help bring down a government that apparently point take away many of the apparent conflicts that appear now. cares more about scoring political points than it does about a Because I can hear so many others wishing to speak on this child's education. topic, I'll perhaps sit down and let them carry on. Now, Mr. Chairman, it's clear that the Minister of Education Thank you, Mr. Chairman. has confused consolidating power with deficit control. His colleague the Treasurer talks about the need to control debts. He MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- in fact talks about what we have in Alberta is an expense problem Glenora. and not a revenue problem. But then what happens? The Minister of Education brings in a Bill that allows taxes to go up. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You know, I was Do we see anything in the amendments to protect Alberta hopeful that these amendments that we have before us would have taxpayers against higher taxes brought about as a consequence of addressed the most serious flaws in the Bill, and unfortunately this government imposing its political will and taking power away they don't. Now, the most serious flaw in Bill 19, of course, is from local authorities? No. In fact, we see just the opposite. the common thread that runs throughout it, which is the central- Now, it would be unfair of me to not mention that this Bill is ization of power to the minister. This is evidenced by the transfer not totally without redeeming value, and these amendments are of requisitioning power from school boards to the province. Of not totally without redeeming value. That's because these course, they've tried to address half of that problem by coming up amendments in fact reflect the goodwill evidenced by the Catholic with something as an offer of appeasement to the Catholic boards. school boards in this province to negotiate almost endlessly with It is also evidenced by the provincial approval and the right of the minister and with his colleagues to bring about a fair resolu- removal of superintendents. Now, they've also tried to modify tion to their disputes. Apparently the minister, at least, recog- that by limiting the approval and appointment to three-year nized that there were serious deficiencies in his Bill, and he was intervals, but this provision also means that superintendents are willing to address that. I give him full credit for the willingness still responsible for the implementation of ministerial policy. This to address those deficiencies and to bring to this Assembly is unacceptable. amendments. Unfortunately, he couldn't quite convince his The creation of charter schools with the provision that an cabinet colleagues about how serious those deficiencies were, agreement can be established by the minister, bypassing local because what we see are amendments that only go halfway. In school boards, is more evidence of this ministerial power grab spite of all of the hard work, in spite of the good intentions, in that has not been addressed in the amendments to Bill 19. spite of the goodwill on the part of the Catholic boards, and in Finally, establishing school council authorities, including spite of all the endless hours and the public submissions, we see program and school management, creates considerable confusion that this government has failed to respond in a way that demon- regarding the roles and responsibilities of school councils, strates their commitment to listening and caring about education. principals, school boards, and parents. Again, all left up to the It's clear now that what they care about most is centralizing power minister to resolve by regulation. None of this is adequately through that tax grab that still continues. addressed in the amendments that the minister tabled in this Mr. Chairman, where is the fairness now? Where do public House. school boards go for fairness? Where is the real equity, if that's Finally, I'm finding some difficulty with the amendments what this Bill is supposed to address and what these amendments simply because of the process. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the are supposed to help this Bill address, between public boards and second time on this Bill, and it is such a fundamental Bill that the separate school boards when in fact they have mirror rights? government has invoked closure. The government stifles, in fact, What is the minister saying to us now in terms of the threat by democratic debate, and in doing so, the Minister of Labour, the Government House Leader, has the gall to stand up and say that May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2029

public school boards around the province that they, too, will be Debate Continued seeking either amendments or a legal remedy through the courts? MR. SAPERS: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I hope that the Mr. Chairman, the amendments before us do not address the Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti will continue to pay close fact that resources will still not be made available for local attention because of course he may have missed my references to programs of excellence, for local school boards to fully fund the amendments. programs of excellence for exceptional students. It still doesn't make available the right resource base so that school boards can MR. COLLINGWOOD: Maybe he would even participate in the do what they know is right, and that's provide a full curriculum debate. No, he wouldn't have participated in the debate. of early childhood schooling. When he had the chance to listen to the thousands and thousands and thousands of Albertans who MR. SAPERS: No, that wouldn't happen. are demanding that ECS be made part of the curriculum, when he As I was saying, there is little hope of course for the co- had the chance to amend this Bill and make ECS part of the ordination that we would like to see by these departments of curriculum, why didn't the minister do that? Is it because he government. Now, also devoid in the amendments, we had the thinks it would be wrong for education? No. It's because he opportunity for a statement of principle regarding public educa- knew that he couldn't sell it to his cabinet colleagues. tion, regarding choice for parents and students, regarding 10:30 entrenched rights for school boards. But, again, absolutely no action. The amendments are devoid of such references, and this Mr. Chairman, where in Bill 19 or in the proposed amendments is particularly troubling. can we find hope for increased co-ordination between and amongst Now, Mr. Chairman, I'll note that when my colleague for government departments? We all know that report after report Edmonton-Ellerslie tried to refer to a page from history, in terms after report, study after study that has looked at education, that of talking about the dangers of centralizing education and has looked at the needs of students has called for increased co- education governance, the members of the government bench ordination between the ministries of Education, social services, became outraged, indignant. We even had a history lesson about Justice, Health, and Municipal Affairs. Where in this Bill is that Nazi Germany from the minister who wanted to bring forced addressed? In fact, it's not addressed at all. In fact, the hopes labour camps to this province. I just can't help but wonder out for that kind of co-ordination are dashed through this Bill. loud whether or not those comments from my colleague for Point of Order Edmonton-Ellerslie maybe struck too close to home because those Relevance members of the government bench know that the amendments are silent in terms of stopping the kinds of problems that we've seen MR. JACQUES: A point of order. in history when the power around education is centralized into the hands of a government that is more concerned with their politics MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order. than with policies for their constituents. Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know why the amendments don't address the question about how the government came to the MR. JACQUES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to cite conclusion that there would be a significant reduction of adminis- 23(b)(i) and also 23 (h), (i), and (j). Particularly I would like to trative costs and bureaucracy as a result of regionalization, and if concentrate on 23(b)(i) with regard to the question under discus- they came to that conclusion, on what basis? What are the sion. From the time that this speaker started, there have been estimates of the savings, in fact? I'd like to know: will this numerous references to the Bill, to the minister, to hypocrisy, and government and succeeding governments resist the powerful lobby on and on and on, with the odd reference to the Bill and then back to lower industry taxes under the guise, of course, of into ECS funding, into publications, into on and on and on. I competitiveness, or will residential taxpayers be obliged to make would request that the speaker speak to the subject on the floor, up the difference that is sure to emerge, as has occurred in other which is the amendments. Thank you. jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, who have gone down this troubled path before us? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Edmonton- I wonder if locally elected trustees and a government-appointed Glenora would you like to say something on the point of order? and -contracted superintendent will be able to develop into a strong leadership team when the superintendent is ultimately MR. SAPERS: There was no point of order, Mr. Chairman, so responsible to the deputy minister, totally usurping the local I'll just continue, if that's okay, because I am clearly speaking to authority of boards. Mr. Chairman, won't regional government- the amendment, as I'm sure you're aware. appointed superintendents spend a majority of their time in their mission to fulfill their eyes-and-ears role for the deputy minister MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have been extremely lenient instead of paying attention to local school board issues? And if towards this because every member that's spoken tonight has they don't, how successful will they be at seeking their reappoint- really strayed away from the amendments. There's been some ment? lovely speeches here tonight, but they should have been made in I'd like to know how the minister can argue that a hundred second reading or third reading. The relevancy: I know all percent funding will yield significant savings when the government members have mentioned the amendments to just keep it on track, intends to assume responsibility for capital debt. The Member for but the truth is there's not been discussion on the amendments. Highwood talked about, well, if 90 percent funding was good and Now, I know the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora has we yearned for those good old days, then why isn't a hundred certainly mentioned the amendments, but we've strayed all over. percent funding better? Well, a hundred percent funding would I really would like to be lenient, but let's try to at least have some be fine as long as the power to requisition was still in the hands connection with the amendments. of those local boards and as long as those local boards still had the The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. ability to put the money where they put their priorities. I know 2030 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

that the Member for Highwood is aware of that distinction. Mr. council. So these are amendments that have been made because Chairman, education . . . we have listened to what Albertans are saying. The site-based management brings democracy to the grass roots. AN HON. MEMBER: A strange process. It promotes participation. It does not alienate and isolate, as people are saying. It is not government from the top down; it is MR. SAPERS: It is indeed, and this Bill, of course, will be their government from the bottom up. Parents have a responsibility in cross to bear. their children's education. They have a very significant role to play, and they are certainly invited to do that with the councils. [Mr. Tannas in the Chair] I'd like to just read a little piece from Trying to Teach: Necessary Conditions, which is a report of the committee on MR. SAPERS: Education funding cuts to school boards across public education and professional practice from the Alberta the province will actually be over 15 percent, and the Minister of Teachers' Association. This report is in line with Bill 19. Education knows that. It won't be the 12 percent that's been Teachers must play an important role in decisions made in education previously announced. We know that discrepancy is there, and at all levels – school, school system and provincial. Structures need it's likely to get worse with inflation as time goes by. to be developed to ensure that teachers have input as individuals, as Again, Mr. Chairman, why do the amendments not deal with school staff and as a profession. A second paragraph I'd like to just briefly reference: the issue of how rural boards will be able to provide educational Parents, too, have an important role to play in this collaborative opportunities for isolated areas when the fees for distance approach. Their active support can enhance the learning of children education are going to escalate dramatically? and needs to be encouraged. They have a right to input into I think that we really had a true and honest effort on the part of decisions at the school, school system and provincial levels. the government to address the deficiencies in Bill 19. These are Accordingly, structures are needed at all three levels to ensure that the issues that we see before us in the amendment. They're not parents as well as teachers are effectively involved in decisions in addressed. It makes it difficult to recognize the good work done education. At the same time, there are reasonable limits. Parents by those involved in the negotiations to try to resolve the impasse have the right to information and to give advice; teachers have the created by the sloppy drafting of Bill 19 in the first place. It right to make professional decisions and be accountable for these makes it difficult to recognize the goodwill that we thought existed decisions. on the part of the government and the school boards around this Members of the Assembly, that is the parent and school council. province. Obviously that goodwill has been squandered on the The school council is made up of teachers, principals, and part of the government. parents. That report definitely supports the school councils, and Mr. Chairman, it is truly unfortunate that closure has been I'm very pleased to see it. I think it's a very forward step. brought on this Bill. It is a very sad day for education and a very This is the '90s. The '90s are based on partnership, collabora- sad day for the future of this province. tion, and it's the way of the future. We must involve all partici- pants in the school system, and that also includes the children. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. They also have the right to help make the determination on the things that affect them. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to stand The plebiscite is another possibility for all boards to raise funds to talk on the amendments to Bill 19. I think it's timely to remind for a specific project using 3 percent of the operating budget, everyone, as my hon. colleague for Calgary-Currie did last night, which would be voted for through their electors for a special tax that there has been significant consultation on this Bill and on levy. This would be operable for three years, and if they wished these amendments. In the fall there were 17,000 letters that the to renew it or had an ongoing project, then it could be brought minister and the caucus received. There were two years previ- forward at the next municipal election. So, again, I really think ously of regional meetings with all the school boards in the that's a good mechanism to have for the boards, and they can province, two roundtables, and most of the MLAs have met with target it to very specific projects. It could also be a program. student bodies, parent councils, teachers, and principals and Perhaps it would be an ESL program. It could be just about certainly the school boards. The amendments are here because we anything that they felt was educationally valuable and wanted by have listened and we do care about education. If we didn't, there their electorate. would have been no amendments. There would have been no The separate school councils and the parent councils are a very movement to appeal to the suggestions that people have made. important part, and I think this is something that we should This amendment before us allowing the separate board to opt in commend the minister for. It doesn't mean that they become the or opt out helps to give them more comfort in what they feel is superintendent. They have a role to play. The superintendent is their position. The fact that they can be topped up from the appointed by the boards, and the minister does have a review of school foundation fund ensures that we will achieve equity, which their status, but I can't see the minister going out and personally is the main reason for most of the restructuring, that we will have looking for 60 new superintendents every year or two. I know an equitable system throughout the province. Regardless of where he's a very responsible person, that the boards are responsible, children live, they will receive a fair and equitable education. and there would not be any frivolous dismissal of superintendents. They would have the same type of tenure, I'm sure, that they 10:40 have today. The separate school boards may by motion require that parent I would like to also say that I really agree with the changes to members on the council be of the separate school faith. This is the charter school. There are many of my constituents who are in agreement with everyone, I'm sure, because we know that their very excited about the charter school. I've had several parents system is based on their faith, and it would not be appropriate to come and see me and talk about it. They feel this is a real have people who are not of that faith coming on the school opportunity to try some innovation, to try some new things, to be part of a new vision for education, and they are very, very May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2031

supportive of the charter school. The minister has said many charter school. Does this mean that the council can basically open times over that there will not be a flood of charter schools. They the whole area up to a charter school that sounds reasonable at a will be piloted. They will be carefully examined, and they will presentation level so that we could end up with curriculum not certainly be allowed to just spring up like mushrooms. So I changes in the name of a charter school that wouldn't have been really agree with the charter school. I think it's a very interesting approved by a board? Similarly, we could have a focus on innovation. I think that it will give us all a chance to try many of education, methods of teaching, a process of teaching, an the new ideas and look at new ways of doing things so that they extracurricular focus like a fine arts or technical school. What are in line with the '90s model. about options in terms of funding, spending money, reporting I would certainly like to recommend the amendments. I think money, expenditure patterns? Are these criteria that the Lieuten- they are very appropriate. They have been a result of consulta- ant Governor in Council may consider when they deal with tions and listening to people. I would certainly urge the Assembly changes or the options to licence and grant a charter for a school? to support them. 10:50 Thank you. The fourth point that I'd like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, deals MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. with the group of amendments under C. Specifically, the first one is 28(1), (2) and (3) as a group. Basically here they remove the DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few words on option for parental choice of which school their children would the government amendments to Bill 19. I'd like to kind of go attend. In the other amendments the parent was included: subject through them in order. First of all, I'd just like to make a couple to parental approval or at the discretion of the parent. In each of of comments about the process. I think that had the minister been those sections now, that clause dealing with the parent is removed, interested in getting real input, he would have provided us with and basically all it says is that the school board or the school can these amendments one at a time, because some of them are very say which school the child will attend. There's no parental choice good, others need slight modification, and others are totally left for them. I would just like to suggest that from the parents' unacceptable. What we're being asked to do is deal with these point of view many of them would like to have the choice of amendments as a package, and it provides very little opportunity where their children attend. It may be closer to a place of work for us to deal with them in the framework that they could have so that there's easier transportation for the child. There are a lot been done had they been handled individually. of things that can determine where parents want their children to To begin through his package, the first set of amendments deals go to school, including the perceived quality or actual quality of with the approach to charter schools. These, I think, are some of education. I was disappointed to see that clause on parental the better amendments in the package, where they clearly go a approval removed from those sections in the Bill. step further in defining how the charter schools will be organized. Basically, also under that 28(5) in there, it says that the parent The fact that they specifically now allow them to be associated option in terms of transferring a student from one school to with both public and separate school boards is a good move. another is removed or lessened. I question the likelihood of, say, The next part of his amendments set deals with the inclusion of parents moving from one part of the province to another. Does trustees and the responsibility of the boards. This is amendment that mean that they're still going to have to have permission of B, section 24.5(1). Does this mean that trustees now will be in that receiving school to have their child enrolled? What if the a position to be totally liable, as the board might? Could school is full? Does that mean they have to be assigned some- individual trustees now be separated out, singled out, for action where else? Or is it conceivable they may have to be left in their by a disgruntled parent or a disgruntled contractee with the board? original school until the end of the school term and we may end It doesn't go far enough to protect the rights of the trustee in the up with separation of families during that period? There are a lot context of responsibility. So a little clarification there either in of questions that aren't very well brought out and that I would terms of the regulations when they get put in place or further hope either a clarification comes or else the regulations can be elaboration would be appreciated. brought in to explain this a little more and give parents a little The third point that I'd like to bring up deals with amendments more guidance in how their children can be transferred from group B on 24.5(2). What we're dealing . . . school. My next point, Mr. Chairman, deals with the group of amend- MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, do you have a point of order? ments under section D of the government amendment package and [interjection] Sorry; the Chair mistakenly took someone rising to the definition of the superintendent's responsibilities. In looking leave for other parts as someone rising on a point of order and at the original amendments to the School Act and the new apologizes. amendment to the amendments, we see that the superintendent has the stipulation to manage removed from their frame of reference. DR. NICOL: Mr. Chairman, nobody rises on a point of order I would say that, you know, it's the board's responsibility to plan, while I'm speaking. I speak so coherently. to develop strategy, to develop a framework under which the school board would operate. The managing that this actually MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure they would have no occasion to do carries out has to be done and has to become the responsibility of so. an individual, and if it isn't going to be the supervisor, I'd like the Lethbridge-East. minister to explain who that might be. I can't see it happening at the principal level because there's a co-ordination problem in DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This second part of terms of putting together strategic plans that has to be dealt with the charter school set of amendments, B: here I'm wondering. at a major level. So it kind of bothers me that there's a hole left It basically says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the in the management structure when you see that that word "man- option to remove or waive any of the other requirements for a age" has been left out of the responsibilities. The superinten- dent's responsibility now is solely to supervise. So in terms of 2032 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

management function there's a void in getting things carried out, the consideration. I was wondering what parameters will be put and I'd like some further explanation there to clarify that for both into this. Will those parameters be built into a system that's my use and that of people in my constituency. flexible enough so that if we have a school division that has a I guess one of the areas that still raises a lot of concern in number of very small schools, there may be an incentive for them connection with the separate school boards comes up in part of the to amalgamate some of those schools into bigger schools? Will amendments that are dealt with in section E of the amendment to the funding mechanisms be set up so that not only are they the amendments. When section 29 is struck out, basically this equitable, but do they provide an incentive to be effective and eliminates the options for parents in a mixed-faith marriage to efficient in the process? direct the funding from their tax base. I would suggest that from This transition may require, you know, three, four, five, 10 my perception this again is another encroachment on parental years to take place, but there should always be an incentive built choice. If the parents choose to have their child attend a separate into those formulas to make sure that the schools are moving in school, why is it that they should not also have the right to choose the direction where they are becoming more effective and that the funding from their tax base follows their child into the efficient. We don't want to see a system that's set up that separate school system? I think this is a really critical exclusion encourages school divisions to go back and create a whole bunch and one that I would hope the minister would consider a revision of little schools that have high cost-per-pupil allocations just so on before this Bill becomes law. It seems to be a major discretion they can end up with a larger number of dollars to deal with in the proposals to correct some of the discrepancies that exist within their structure. before the separate school boards that have been covered as they 11 : 0 0 moved from the original amendment package to the additional amendments included in our submission from yesterday. So I The next point I'd like to address is under J, 159.1(1.5). There think that again the parents feel that their choice framework has are references made there to the high level of funding. I take it been limited not only in terms of the education for their child but that the last one, (1.5), deals with the separate schools that opt now in terms of the funding that they can provide to support that out. But is there any provision here that if they opt out, they're education. not going to have to pay back into the school fund, the similar Mr. Chairman, the next point that I'd like to bring up deals way to separate schools that stay in? If their revenues per student with some of the changes again in the section specifically dealing are above the triggered amount by the school foundation Act, they have to pay the surplus in. So if a school opts out, they get to with 155(2). Here we see what seems to me to be a little bit of keep that. That's how I read that section. In essence, they can a conflict. This section, which is under G on page 5 of the overfund their students if they opt out and have a high level of tax amendment package, says that the municipalities have an obliga- base. What guarantees are there, if the separate school decides to tion to make sure that the total amount of dollars transferred to opt out, that subsequent changes in the tax system, such as maybe the school foundation fund are at the level that is stipulated. Later a change in the M and E, wouldn't greatly affect their funding on, down in section I under the amendment to 49(4), it says that base and create a problem for them in terms of the relationship the municipality is to calculate the amount to be paid based on the they have on this opt-in or opt-out provision? They should be told mill rate. So what we've got is that in one place in the Act in advance that these possibilities exist. It may discourage them they're saying that the municipality calculates the amount to be from opting out just to have an extra funding allocation. transferred in, and in another place in the amendments it's saying In section L I have a couple more comments. The final one that the municipality is told how much they have to pay in and there on section 60 – what is actually section 210(1.1) – talks they have to meet that level. Which is it? Are they told how about the municipality and the government getting involved in much to pay in, or do they calculate how much gets paid in? negotiations for land, to take land into the use or to take land out I think that in those two sections under the funding transfers it of the school use. Why is it that the school boards are not would be good to have some clarification. Basically, there is involved in this transfer? I know the land base is potentially going to be a possibility here of conflict. Whose figure takes owned or taxed by the municipality and the minister is involved precedence? What are the mediation processes that come about with the allocation of capital funds, but at least I would like to see when a conflict arises between the amount requested by the a situation where the school boards, the school division, the government for the municipality to submit and the amount that the school unit are also involved in the transfer of the land base in or municipality says they will submit based on their calculation of the out of the school land base for each of the municipalities. assessed properties and the mill rates? We need some clarification Some generalized comments now. Basically, if we deal with on that particular section, if the minister would, or else further the way the amendments are set up, the centralized negotiation explanation as to how this will be handled possibly in regulations. that comes about, not specifically mentioned in the subsequent set Another one that I'd like to bring up deals with section J of of amendments but in terms of the focus and the control that's your amendments. I think we've had this addressed a little bit given to the regional boards – how is this going to deal with the tonight, but it says that you're going to have the same amount of negotiation for labour contracts, like with teachers? We saw a lot dollars – excuse me, I'm on the wrong page here; that would be of success in the past couple of months with local boards, dealing section 159(1.2) – per student. We've heard comments tonight with their teachers at a local level, getting local input into the about how is this going to be calculated to reflect differences for negotiation process. As this is changed, is it going to be more the imputed costs per student in the different school divisions? difficult for local authorities to have influence in the negotiation How do they know that basically transportation differentials, process? teaching style differentials, school size differentials all get built Also, in terms of the amendments that are put in place now for into this calculation? The basic premise here is that there is some taxation with the option for the separate school boards to opt out, kind of a set calculation or a set formula that can be used. effectively we have created or reauthorized a complex system of It's unfortunate that this couldn't have been put out and released taxation which is almost as complex as the one we have now. It's to the school divisions for discussion while they were dealing with not going to save us any in the administration of our taxation because what we've got is a municipality still being responsible May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2033

for collecting taxes, transferring it now to the central fund, where parents and the school community in the operation of schools. I before they transferred it to the public or the separate school recognize that that is part of their direction, obviously part of the board. They still have to deal with separate school boards if they position they've taken on the future of education in this province. opt out. So we've got a lot of administration that's associated I assume it is cruel to provide a guarantee that resident students with handling the tax system that hasn't been simplified by the of government – and that's provided for in one of the amendments amendments. The original set of amendments did create a more – are assured of an education in their resident area, in their simplified taxation system where all the dollars were collected and resident jurisdiction, that guarantee of a suitable program. I could put into one pool. Now we're going back. So why not just leave go on, Mr. Chairman, on this particular thrust of the remarks of it the way it was and allow for the local jurisdiction? The the Leader of the Opposition. The directions are there for the equalization can still occur through differential influences on mill benefit of the students in the province. This has been the rates and taxation proposals. motivation of the government. It is the motivation of the minis- A final comment, Mr. Chairman, if I might. In section D on ter. The tack taken by the Leader of the Opposition seems to be 94.1 you've got a group of subclauses there of (1) through (5) that completely contrary to that focus on the good of students. talk about the contracts with the superintendents. A question I would like to go on though, Mr. Chairman, to address four came up in some of my discussions with constituents and school key areas that have been raised by members that have spoken to board groups: what's going to happen to the situation where the amendments. First of all, the issue of public education has school boards are not going to be regionalized, amalgamated, been brought up relative to many of the amendments and many of they're going to be left as a current board, and they have a the very general comments that have been made. The thrust of contract with a superintendent that is a continuing contract? How Bill 19 and the amendments before the House are very much in long does that continuing contract last? Until the superintendent support of a public education system in this province. I think we retires? There's no provision that I can see in the Act or that they have to consider the definition of a public education system: it is could see in it that says that contract has automatically been one that is publicly funded; secondly, it is accessible to all converted to a three-year renewable. So there's a possibility there students; it is publicly governed by elected people at the various that some superintendents in the province, because of their current levels of the system; and it is a system which functions around a contracts, the current status of the school board that they report common core curriculum and standards. and they administer, could continue with an indefinite, continuing While the previous three characteristics are directly dealt with contract. I'd like the minister to clarify if possible or to bring an in Bill 19 and in the amendments, I acknowledge that the core amendment in to deal with that. curriculum and standards are part of the program of education in Mr. Chairman, that basically covers the 12, 13 points that I this province, but they are certainly part of our business plan and had, and I would like to let some of my other colleagues speak. something that gets a strong emphasis in the direction of the Chairman's Ruling government. There is the opportunity for a public window, a Decorum window on the system, and for involvement of the public. The system must be held accountable. Throughout Bill 19 and the MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, I amendments these themes are supported. I would like to just refer would wish you to remove the unusual headgear, which is not specifically to some of those. permitted under Beauchesne 329. You have a point of order on the point of order? 11 : 10 First of all, the whole section on funding, Mr. Chairman, is DR. L. TAYLOR: Yes. I have Beauchesne 329 in front of me, directed at providing a fair and equitable basis of funding for all Mr. Chairman, and it says, "Speakers in recent years have the students in the province no matter which publicly funded frowned on unorthodox headgear." Well, I would argue that a system they're in. That is a fact, and that is a strong direction of McDonald's hat is not unorthodox headgear. It's quite common this legislation. in our society. Secondly, we have a system in this province that is accessible to students, and Bill 19 and its amendments continue that particu- MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order raised by the hon. lar characteristic. I will refer to just one specific example by way Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat with regard to the unusual of the amendments which are before the House. With respect to headgear is not found to be in favour by the Chair. section 28 and the change that was made there, which provides The hon. Minister of Education. that students have access to either of the two publicly funded Debate Continued systems, that is one of many provisions in this legislation. Certainly this legislation, Mr. Chairman, has provided public MR. JONSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak very governance for the school systems of this province, the schools of briefly in response to the Leader of the Opposition opposite. I this province. In the thrust of Bill 19 you have the decentraliza- certainly don't intend to waste much time on that particular tion of focus, of decision-making, of involvement with additional presentation, but I notice that the leader seems to be very hung up flexibility at the school level, where education is delivered. on the word "cruel." I have to conclude from his remarks the In the legislation there are provisions, particularly with respect following, because I think that is definitely the message that was to reporting information, financial information, which enhance the there: first of all, it is cruel to provide for fair and equitable accountability of the system, and that meshes very well with the funding for all students in this province; secondly, it is thus so to overall education business plan that the government is operating provide for the recognition of the constitutional rights of separate from. Overall there is an opening up of the system to avenues for school boards; and it is cruel to provide for the meaningful more public discussion, more public scrutiny across this province, involvement of parents. and I think, Mr. Chairman, that is for the good of education in I know that the members opposite, through previous debate, the long term. seem to have a real problem with meaningful involvement of 2034 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, there have been many references to fundamental lack of understanding about the Alberta school the process of amalgamation and regionalization of school foundation fund, although I believe it is very clear in the legisla- jurisdictions. I find, quite frankly, an inability to really conclude tion and in everything we have said with respect to its formation. as to where the members opposite are coming from on this I'd like to comment on one particular aspect which has been particular question. On the one hand, they object to the process brought up here three or four times this evening with respect to of amalgamation and regionalization. [interjection] On the one the debate on the amendments. hand, there are objections to the process of amalgamation and Out of the Alberta school foundation fund will be paid across regionalization. Great concerns were raised about this and that. this province an equal outcome grant or payment per student in On the other hand, I do acknowledge that some members opposite whichever system they are in, in whatever school they happen to in their remarks on the Bill and on the amendments have sup- be going to. That equal outcome approach to the funding of ported amalgamation and regionalization. students across this province is for everyone. There is no discrimination here with respect to public over separate or vice MR. HENRY: We supported Bill 8. Remember that, Halvar. versa. The sort of paper tiger that is raised is that somehow or We voted for Bill 8. other, because of the recognition of the constitutional rights of the separate school system with respect to opting out of the fund, MR. JONSON: Mr. Chairman, I hear that they supported Bill 8. conditions may be put on the allocation of money, whether it be Well, that is good, and they should support Bill 19 and its from general revenue or from the Alberta school foundation fund, amendments because this furthers that very worthy process, and after the development of our fiscal framework or provincial grant I'm glad you're on side on that particular question. structure. There seems to be this false message that somehow or Mr. Chairman, on a third very important overall issue, there other any conditions that might be applied – let's say it is for an have been a number of objections raised with respect to the administrative cap – will apply somehow differently for one system over the other. Any overall conditions apply to both of amendments that are before the House with respect to the the two systems, all of the school jurisdictions, and it is equitably emphasis on school councils. In fact, I recall that in previous applied. This particular, as I say, paper tiger or some type of debate one of the hon. members opposite – I believe it was the element that's been brought in here just doesn't apply, doesn't Member for Edmonton-Mayfield – referred to parental involve- ring true in this whole debate. ment as being a kind of cruel hoax or joke, and I certainly do not share that view. I do not share that view, Mr. Chairman. 11 : 2 0 The fact of the matter here is that we have a direction and Also with respect to the overall funding of education, I think overall emphasis, but in this province – and I give credit to there has been the issue raised as to how you provide for some of schools and to school systems in the province – there are very the special costs that parts of this province incur. The obvious successful school councils which we can learn from and, I think, one, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to transportation. We still the activity that you, Mr. Chairman, are involved in as chairman have the capacity, we must keep in mind, that we can spend from of the implementation team on this particular topic. We'll be able the money allocated to Alberta Education by Treasury out of the to learn from those particular real-life examples of school councils general revenue fund. There is a place, of course, for allowances having a major, meaningful role in improving the education of the for sparsity and transportation and some of these essential other schools to which they are related. areas where you have to recognize that the cost of delivering a We also have in the province, Mr. Chairman, site-based quality education will be different, depending upon circumstances, budgeting operating very successfully, a very important element in parts of the province. That has been clearly stated all along, of this overall thrust that's provided for in this legislation and in but I think it bears repeating here because questions on that the amendments. This is a flatter system. It is a system which particular issue have been brought forward. emphasizes resources being placed at the school level, where The important thing about the overall approach to funding, Mr. education is delivered, and cutting down on the administration and Chairman, is that we focus here on students. Every student in the cost of governance. this province should have the best education possible, the best In the amendments there is a provision for further clarification quality education possible, and to the greatest extent possible we with respect to the nature of school councils. That is clarified should avoid in any way inhibiting that occurring on a fair and further, but that overall thrust is there. And I really have concern equitable basis across this province. for the members opposite that they are so critical, so negative Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal with one other item. There towards this very, very healthy direction that is being taken. were a number of questions raised, and I think in the general You know, Mr. Chairman, as far as the teachers in this system remarks I've made I've addressed many of them, but I'd like to are concerned, they often want – I've heard them express the deal with the issue that has been raised with respect to parental desire for more flexibility to be able to use their professional choice. The ability of students to choose to move within the expertise, their knowledge of methodology, and get the job done. public and separate school systems is provided for in this legisla- Generally speaking, the teaching force of this province are proud tion. Yes, there is one practical consideration, and that is that if of what they do. They do a fine job and they aren't afraid of you're going to operate a viable transportation system, that has to being held accountable for what they accomplish, but they want have a location and boundaries to be identified with. So in the ability, the means, the flexibility in the school to get the job practical terms that has to be done. done. I hope the members opposite are not opposing that The other thing I'd like to just clarify and make very clear is particular direction. that in the legislation the element of choice that we have been The fourth major area I would like to comment on, Mr. talking about all along is provided for. What has been referred to – and the question has been raised as to this being interpreted as Chairman, is with respect to the amendments pertaining to the being somewhat contradictory to this matter of choice – is that Alberta school foundation fund and this overall very, very while there is that choice, there has to be an assurance that important part of this legislation. There obviously is a very students in the attendance area of a local school do have the first May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2035

opportunity to go to their local school, and in logical, practical So the Catholic community said, "We have no option but to take terms those coming from other areas have to take a position you folks to court." That's when the government sat up. second, shall we say, to the local students of the resident area. Now, it was interesting that when this Bill was tabled on March That is a practical consideration and a necessary consideration for 31, the minister said: we are on solid constitutional ground; we local students. don't have a problem here; we have legal experts to say that I'd like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by indicating we're right on track and we've respected every constitutional that Bill 19 and the amendments before the House are designed to provision. Unfortunately, the minister has refused, in a subse- restructure the education system with a focus on the student, a quent motion for a return, to make those legal opinions public. focus on the school, a focus on the local school community. It I might note for the record that the legal opinions and the record focuses on a good quality education, the best quality education show, hon. minister, that the legal opinions which have been possible for all students in this province. It provides fair and attained by this board have been made public to whoever has equitable funding. It provides for a more effective and efficient asked for them, and believe me, several people and several boards system with respect to governance and administration so that in this province have asked for them. I might also point out that resources can be directed to the school and to the student. What the legal opinions that the minister has refused to release are paid we are doing here as a government, what I want to accomplish as for with taxpayers' dollars, unlike the legal opinions on this side a minister is a streamlined education system with resources of the House, which are paid for by non taxpayer dollars, Mr. focused on the school and all possible effort focused on the Chairman. students of this province. The government then said: "Well, we'd better negotiate. These guys are going to take us to court. We're in a problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. We'd better go back to our lawyers." The lawyers said, "Whoops, you made a mistake; we're not on quite solid ground; MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Following we're a bit shaky here in San Francisco," or something. And the the initial comments of the hon. minister, I'll try to be a bit less San Andreas Fault flew right up through them, in between the direct than the Leader of the Opposition, because although some minister and his government. Then the minister said: okay, let's of us may be thinning on top, the minister's skin is wearing negotiate; we have a deal. The minister repeatedly went back. thinner and thinner as the day goes on. Every time the Catholics would come with a deal, the minister would say yes. The minister would go back to his caucus and MR. HAVELOCK: Just like yours, Mike. then back to the Catholics with more conditions and more conditions and more conditions. Finally the minister has said: MR. HENRY: For the hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw, this skin oh, I don't have unanimity; I've got to go it alone. Well, he got isn't going to get any thinner. It keeps getting thicker, you may unanimity, and he went it alone anyway. So now we have these note. amendments in front of us. Mr. Chairman, to the amendments. There's been significant I want to acknowledge that these amendments capture some of debate on the amendments, and I want to raise a couple of points the substance of the agreement that has been worked out by the that I think need to be pointed out. Let's be very, very clear Catholic boards and the province's lawyers. I also want to about what's happened here. We had this broad consultation in acknowledge that this respects in a very minimal way but does the fall, and Albertans told the government several things about respect the 1901 constitutional guarantees. However, I want to their education and about their education system. People from bring the Assembly's attention to page 7 of the amendments where across this province, literally tens of thousands of people, section 51 is amended, and after the proposed 159.1(1), you go to (1.3) on page 8. It says that participated in the consultation in one form or another in good a separate school district or division to which Division 4 does not faith. Then in January announcements were simply made, and apply [is] subject to the rights under the Constitution of Canada of everybody knew they had been had, that this government was not separate school electors. interested in listening to the people but in fact had its own agenda I would hope that any piece of legislation we pass in this Legisla- or, if you look at Bill 19, several different agendas that look like ture we would know for sure is constitutional. We wouldn't have various steamrollers all crashing at the centre. The government, to put some clause in there to say that it's subject to the Constitu- though, when they made the announcements in January and again tion. In all my years dealing in public policy, I've never seen a in February, awakened some Albertans to the reality of how this piece of legislation that says, "We want to do this, but we have government operates. to do it subject to a constitutional provision." Let the record be I'd like to give a significant tribute to the Roman Catholic very clear. What you've got here is something that says: "Whoa, education community in this province for having seen that this Catholic boards. Back off. You'll be able to go to court. You'll government was trying to centralize control of education so this be able to go to the Supreme Court and hold us to it when we government could make all the decisions and deny citizens of start raking off your money, but don't do it now. Do it later. Alberta their constitutional rights, which have been there long We'll consider it then. Just let us get through this horrible thing before any member of this House stepped in and will be there, that the Liberals and Catholics and teachers and boards and thank God, long after all of us leave. The Catholic community parents and citizens of this province are putting us through." persisted. The education community in Alberta persisted through Mr. Chairman, I've said that the amendments here that deal letter writing, through reasoning, through meetings, through with the separate school division are a step in the right direction. public demonstrations, through any mechanism they could find to I think it needs to go further, much further, and to that end I'd try to convince this government that they were wrong. They like to propose a subamendment that I'll circulate now. This finally said, "You're not willing to change your mind." The subamendment does what this government should have done three government said, "Back off; we're not going to listen to you." months ago, which is bring in a Bill and make sure the Catholics and publics are treated equally. What this does is allow the 2036 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

provisions that are outlined in the minister's amendments with appropriate process or shoving it down our throats, whichever regard to . . . way, and I think that's a debating point and not necessarily a point of order. However, we were on the point that Calgary-Shaw 11 : 3 0 made, and that was that he wanted to have the subamendments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're late, as you can However, we had made a ruling on that, Calgary-Shaw, that the appreciate. While the pages are handing these around, would you hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre could speak to these while care to either wait a moment until people have them or to read the they were being circulated. So that had actually been dealt with. amendment? Now, I wonder if we could return to the debate and have Edmonton-Centre's time begin again. MR. HENRY: Perhaps I can explain the amendment in very general terms. Debate Continued MR. HENRY: Mr. Chairman, now that the hon. Government MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure you can. House Leader has used up time and bought some time for his members to be able to look at the amendment, I'll speak directly. MR. HENRY: The amendments, in general terms, allow public There is, I understand, a convention in law that says that when a school boards the same provision that the government's amend- government, when a majority enshrines rights for a minority, it is ments provide for separate school boards so that we now have – assumed by enshrining those rights that the majority already have and as I spoke yesterday in this House – a situation . . . those rights. I know the government members across; every time we talk about rights, they like to talk about special status. On this MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. side of the House we believe in individual rights, and we believe We appear to have a point of order. Point of order, Calgary- in constitutional rights. A right is a right. What this subamend- Shaw? ment speaks to is the fact that when in 1901 the North-West Point of Order Territories Ordinance outlined that separate school supporters Amendments could collect their own taxes and administer their own taxes, that MR. HAVELOCK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just was a constitutional provision but was a mirroring of what the simply could we wait a moment before you discuss the motion public system had all along. That's a sound constitutional until we get it so we can go along with you? I'd appreciate that, argument. I've been advised by several sources. It certainly if possible, please. speaks to logic from my perspective. So, Mr. Chairman, what we're asking for is the old adage that MR. HENRY: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I agree on that, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. and I find it kind of ironical coming from the government bench, Point of Order the people who want to shove through legislation in this Legisla- Decorum ture and give minimal time for debate, that these are the folks who now want a bit of time to consider it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw rising on a point of order with a citation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Government House Leader, on this point of order? MR. HAVELOCK: Yes, thank you. I'm looking at Beauchesne Point of Order 336, which deals with private conversations. If I could briefly Imputing Motives quote. Although difficult to enforce on occasion, Speakers have also MR. DAY: The citation is Standing Order 23(i) on alleging consistently attempted to discourage loud private conversations in the certain motives. The member talked about the government trying Chamber, and have urged those wishing to carry on such exchanges to limit debate, trying to shove through debate. That is not a fact to do so outside the House. at all, and it is alleging certain motives to members on this side If you would be so kind as to enforce this. I'm having some of the House which, in fact, has not been true. Members on this difficulty in listening to the remarks by the hon. member, and I side have been very patient, have listened very carefully to certainly would like to hear what he has to say. the . . . [interjections] Well, I can't speak . . . [interjections] The record is very clear. Members on this side have been patient, MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw, it is indeed and when you see the amount of minutes spoken by various interesting that you should raise such a point. However, I am members, we have done everything possible to allow the full sure that as it has been raised before and was at those times allotment of 20 minutes at every possible juncture for members equally appropriate, perhaps it is now. The Chair has called at opposite, so I would ask and hope that the Member for Edmonton- various times for hon. members to please cut down their conversa- Centre would withdraw his comment about government members tions, for only one member to be standing and talking at the same trying to stifle, trying to limit debate. That has not happened at time so that we can hear hon. members. We're in a compressed all. time. I think it's appropriate that those hon. members be given the time to speak. If you don't wish to hear them, please check MR. HENRY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the point of order, with your Whip and be outside in one the lounges. the record of the Blues will show that I did not talk about The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. individual government members, and I will not withdraw my remarks that the government is trying to shove this Bill through. MR. HENRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad you said it MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we do have before us a to the hon. member and not me. closure motion. Some people may wish to characterize that as May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2037

11 : 4 0 Debate Continued of this importance, that they say is the most important one, that they have told me that they will use every trick possible to delay, MR. HENRY: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the subamendments, drag out, and filibuster – they've told me that. If it's that the subamendments very clearly are trying to avoid the practice important, why then last night were there five of them here? of this government over the past few months. This government Tonight when we started debate on this, there were five members huddles by themselves, talks to their deputy, and then says, here, and when we went into a division there were nine members, "Here's what we're going to do." "Damn the torpedoes," they only nine members. say. "Let's go ahead and do it." Then they get into all sorts of potential legal problems, and I'm not sure if this government's Point of Order sponsoring . . . I've got it. The minister without a purpose has Relevance determined that the way to get people back working in this MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park rising province is to make sure every lawyer in this province has work on a point of order. settling out this government's fumbles. This amendment is meant to avoid this government falling into the trap of ending up with, not lawsuits from the separate school community, but lawsuits MR. COLLINGWOOD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. from the public school community. This has not been dreamed up Rising on Beauchesne 459. We're obviously very short of time by myself or by members of our caucus but by true consultation given that the hon. Government House Leader has invoked closure that members from the other side could learn from and talking to on this most important Bill. You, Mr. Chairman, have been very public school board supporters and separate school board support- careful to ensure that members speak directly to amendments. ers. We're now on the subamendment. The speaker is speaking about I have information for you, Mr. Chairman, that if all hon. the number of members in the Assembly. It has absolutely members of this House will support this subamendment, they will nothing to do with the subamendments. I'd ask you to order that be applauded not only by the public school community, but also we stick to the subamendments. by the catholic school community in this province. Thank you. With those remarks it's very clear that we have to have equal treatment for public and separate school boards. Nobody has ever MR. DAY: On the point of order, I agree with him. Thank you. asked for special status. Catholics have never asked for special Debate Continued status in this province. They have asked for their constitutional rights, which are also the constitutional rights of the public board, MR. DAY: Moving on to the subamendments – I haven't left the and any responsible member of this Assembly will support this subamendments yet – it's also important as we look at them to measure to ensure that public and separate boards are treated reflect a little. If we look now in reflection on section 157, as it's equally. named here, and also section 159, we need to consider something. Also, Mr. Chairman, I daresay that if the hon. members on the This is May 17, I believe. The entire Bill, which now has these other side would like for a change to go back and consult with subamendments, was first debated on April 12. The member boards, I'm sure they will get unanimous consent from this side opposite quite rightly also referred to the fact that consultation of the House to withdraw the previous closure motion to give the started on it in the fall. Now he's up to these subamendments. government side time to go and talk to some real people in the With me speaking on the subamendments, we are somewhere real world. around the 60 mark. That's 60 speakers to this Bill and to this Thank you. subamendment. We've had . . . [interjections] I am leading up to this subamendment, just as the member opposite did for 18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a little point of clarification, hon. minutes: led up to his subamendment, laid that foundation. member. Inasmuch as under the provisions of Standing Orders That's what I'm referring to, the foundation of the subamendments you can only speak once, the assumption is that you have moved that he laid. [interjections] all of these under your name. Is that so? Chairman's Ruling Decorum MR. HENRY: Mr. Chairman, I thought I said that. If I didn't, please correct the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, hon. Government Thank you. House Leader, but the convention is still in place that we speak through the Chair. To those people you were apparently respond- MR. CHAIRMAN: It was a point of clarification. ing to or dealing with, could we go through the Chair? Thank you. MR. DAY: Mr. Chairman, as we look at these subamendments, it's interesting the number of sections that are being quoted and MR. DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand corrected again. referred to. So in looking at the subamendment we will have to That was a good point you've raised, and I will try and direct look in each case at the particular reference and section so that we myself to that. There is such a magnetism about the people can understand them and see them in their context. The Member opposite, I find myself drawn to them. for Edmonton-Centre started his remarks tonight as he led up to these subamendments by talking about making something very Debate Continued clear. He talked about the importance of these subamendments, MR. DAY: Speaking to the Chair, adding now the speakers on and I don't question that. I believe that he feels these are the subamendment, this is what it costs us to talk about this important. I don't question that. subamendment. We're here at a cost of approximately $15,000 I do, however, have to question when members opposite say a day. We will have had 10 days of debate on this particular that something is important – and they said that this Bill was, and item. That means $10,000 an hour it's cost us to debate this. they say that these subamendments are. It's fascinating that a Bill 2038 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

Point of Order receiving so that we might hear that indeed the hon. Government Relevance House Leader is on target. MR. COLLINGWOOD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. DAY: Thank you for again calling the members opposite to order on their noisy behaviour. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Sherwood Park rising on a point of order. Debate Continued MR. DAY: Now, amendment G talks about separate school MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Beauchesne districts, amendment H talks about separate school districts, 459. It is extremely important that the speaker stick to the amendment J talks about separate school districts, and when the subamendments. It is not relevant to talk about the number of hon. Leader of the Opposition was standing, he also was talking speakers on the Bill. It is not relevant to talk about the cost of about separate school districts. So I'm referring directly to the being in this Assembly and having closure shoved down our separate school districts that are being affected by these throats. What's important is that subamendments are on the floor subamendments, and it's very interesting to note that members for debate. They deal with separate school districts, and I'd like opposite have said that the separate schools have been treated the hon. member to stick to the substance of the subamendments. without due regard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, I'll quote the Member for Edmonton- Glengarry. When he was talking about separate school districts MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was going to make a ruling on the – that's what the subamendment is about – he said that the last point of relevance but will reserve comment until we have this minister was weak. He was weak because after talking to the point of relevance responded to by the Government House Leader. separate school boards on separate school districts, what did the weak minister do? He went back and attended to the concerns MR. DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Directly on the point of that were brought up by these very separate school districts. order. Yourself, Mr. Chairman, and others who have sat in the That's called weakness. I doubt it. That's called strength. Chair have had difficulty – and I appreciate the difficulty you Separate school districts are talked about in the subamendment. must have – in terms of allowing certain latitude when speaking What did this nasty minister do for separate school districts? He to amendments. I appreciate the fact you have been very gracious made sure they have enhanced recognition in the preamble. He to the members opposite all evening long in allowing considerable made sure they have equity funding. He made sure the rights of latitude. Considerable latitude. I am speaking directly to, about, separate school districts are protected. He went back and he in, on, around, and for these subamendments. I would suggest strengthened and fortified the concerns of separate school districts that I'm speaking to them far more directly than we've heard that are mentioned in this subamendment, and for that, he's amendments spoken to all night long. Yet I realize the difficulty labeled as being weak. I personally, Mr. Chairman, through you you have, and I would ask that the same consideration, even a thank the minister for having the strength to say: we can slightly narrower consideration, be given to me as has been given improve; we can do better. to members opposite. 11 : 5 0 Mr. Chairman, the separate school districts cannot be consid- MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair has attempted to ered in this subamendment without looking at the reflection and give a certain amount of leeway with regard to relevance and has the implications on the public school districts. They are inextrica- allowed members to range rather freely from the Bill itself bly tied together, and that is something that is very obvious. So through the amendments and through the subamendments, because as we look at the subamendment here and the implications of what each member who gets to speak is only entitled to speak once, happens if we follow amendment H in section 48, there are some whether we have before us the subamendments, the amendments, implications here for the reflections on the public district. That or the Bill itself. Having said that, as the Government House subamendment has a direct implication on the public, and what Leader in his earlier point of order said that he would become are we doing? [interjections] more relevant, we would hope that. Just so all hon. members do Isn't it fascinating. We stayed relatively – I'm not saying know, we have given a little more leeway, but we would hope totally – quiet through speaker after speaker after speaker. Now that you would focus in on the subamendments. when somebody gets up and fires some points back at them, to Debate Continued quote an earlier opposition regime, they are so thin skinned they just can't take it and they go berserk. I'd ask them to show the MR. DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In speaking to the same politeness we've shown to them. subamendment, I'm making the observation that every person who So in considering these subamendments on the separate school speaks to this subamendment – when you do the breakdown of districts, what are the implications on the public? What has this how many speakers we've had, over 60 since April 12, it costs minister done to balance out the implications for the public? about $3,000 to the taxpayers every time someone gets up. So as Allowed for equity funding. I speak on this subamendment, we need to ask the question, and We hear concerns about parent councils. He has ordered, the question is valid: what price democracy? What price free requisitioned that implementation teams go throughout the speech? There's no price on it, but as I look at the subamend- province talking with parents – talking with parents – about the ment, we need to consider not just what price democracy but what implications of this particular Bill. value are the taxpayers getting? [interjections] Chairman's Ruling Chairman's Ruling Decorum Decorum MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry to interrupt. A few hon. members MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I wonder if we could bring have forgotten that we still have a rule that only one person stands down the level of extra assistance that the hon. speaker is and speaks at a time. I wonder if all members could observe that. May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2039

If you want to sit and visit quietly, that would be appreciated, but MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall rising only one member standing and speaking at a time. on a point of order. You have a citation? The hon. Government House Leader. MR. SOHAL: Beauchesne 483. Debate Continued MR. DAY: Mr. Chairman, allowing time on these subamend- MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry; I did not hear you. ments – it's fascinating, in direct reference to this, to consider the remarks of the Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, who said that she MR. SOHAL: Beauchesne 483. did not have a chance to speak at second reading. Why didn't she have a chance? Because her member two seats south of her MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point, sir. brought in an amendment that would have killed the Bill. That's why she didn't have the chance. Her own member tried to bring MR. SOHAL: closure on her. That's how we got to these subamendments There are words of interruption such as the cries of "question", tonight, because of a bold move on the government side. It would "order, order", "hear, hear", or "resign", which have been sanc- have been easy just to let the Bill die like the opposition wanted. tioned by long parliamentary usage and if used in moderation, are not unparliamentary, but when frequent and loud, cause serious disorder. But no, we had to move a motion that would send this into the I can't hear anything the hon. minister is saying. committee stage so that we could deal with subamendments like the man from Edmonton-Centre brought forward so that we could MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the point is well made. Both let democracy reign and not see this Bill killed, as the opposition sides of the House have contributed to a certain level of noise that motion would have had it done on second reading. has all too frequently this evening interrupted the speakers or in So looking at amendment J, which refers to section 159.1(1.3), fact drowned them out so others couldn't hear them, regardless of there are some fascinating items that come out of this. It's very whether they had hearing assistance or not. clear here that separate school districts, Mr. Chairman, have The hon. Government House Leader. achieved virtually everything they asked for. They've achieved everything they've asked for, yet the member opposite pretends MR. DAY: Thank you again for bringing the opposition to order, to be in touch with some phantom out there who's suggesting that Mr. Chairman. they want even more than they've already asked for. The minister has accommodated what they've requested. He's accommodated 12:00 Debate Continued what has been asked for by the separate school boards. This subamendment is fascinating. [interjections] I would like to draw MR. DAY: The subamendment on separate school districts – it's members' attention, because they're losing it, to the subamend- just as important to consider what it does as what it doesn't do so ment. This subamendment is perfectly consistent with virtually people understand the implication. I've heard time and time again every remark that's been made by opposition members about Bill the concern from the opposition members, for instance, about 19. Virtually every remark – and I've listened carefully through parent councils. This subamendment doesn't address that, but it all the debates – has had to do with power, with administration, does say what it doesn't do, and what it doesn't do is anything to with turf. I have not heard one remark from members opposite deter their paranoia about marauding bands of parents who are directed to the children in the school system. I haven't heard one. going to sweep into the school system like so many Huns coming Not one. Not one. Sixty speakers since April 12 at a cost of over the wall and take it over. What do we say? We say: come $15,000 a day, $150,000: not one reference. [interjections] up with something better than this; come up with something along the lines of what the minister has come up with. He has parent Chairman's Ruling councils talking about the type of regulations they would like to Decorum have in working with schools to make it a viable working relationship. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I know it is getting late, and our anticipation of the rest of the evening is getting the better of Point of Order us. I would hope in the seven minutes or so that is remaining in Reflections on Nonmembers the allotted time for the hon. Government House Leader that we might afford him an opportunity of finishing his speech, whenever MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Redwater is rising on that might come. a point of order.

MR. DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for the purpose of MR. N. TAYLOR: Beauchesne 459, casting aspersions on the the good, conscientious citizens of this province who read Huns. I would like the hon. member to know that the Huns were Hansard, you had to intervene there because most of the opposi- composing music and great ballets when his ancestors were still tion members were doing Hitler-style salutes and stomping swinging through the trees. jackboot style on the floor. In this day and age, with the heart- break and sensitivity that surrounds the tragedy of the Holocaust, MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the citation doesn't match the for them to be sitting there and laughing and doing the sieg heil conclusions that you reached. There appears to be on the surface salute and imitating jackboots, that's a tragedy for the people who no point of order. suffered at the hands of that particular regime. The hon. Government House Leader. Now, if I may continue. MR. DAY: Well, thank you for that ruling. Hansard will again Point of Order show the complete idiocy of remarks made from members Decorum opposite, and at $15,000 an hour in this Legislature I think members should think about that. MR. SOHAL: A point of order. 2040 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

Debate Continued mean that. That is in fact a matter of debate, which of course this institution is all about. MR. DAY: I will conclude in several minutes, Mr. Chairman, if However, we did have a couple of words uttered, one on one I'm allowed to continue here. I will conclude by saying that this side and one on the other. One was something to the effect that subamendment . . . there was idiocy rampant in the comments on the opposite, and on Point of Order the other side we had the accusation of untruths. Hon. members, Abusive Language these kinds of comments have been ruled unparliamentary by Speakers or Chairmen of the Alberta Legislature somewhere MR. ZWOZDESKY: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. between 1905 and 1993, at least to November 9 of that latter year. So one would presume that both of them will be taken back, and MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore we can now get to the question before us, which is, now that it is is rising on a point of order with the citation. past midnight, that we are going to vote on the items before us.

MR. ZWOZDESKY: Well, sure, let's make it 23(j). I find the MR. HENRY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. comments being made by this particular member abusive and offensive and, as has become customary with him, also extremely MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, hon. member, we'll let you have misleading. I think I heard him say a little earlier that in all the the point of order. The hon. Government House Leader did in debates on this Bill, reference to education from the standpoint of fact have four minutes, 50 seconds and is entitled to continue to students was never made. speak. Is that what you're going to do, hon. Government House Leader? MR. DAY: Mr. Chairman, this is a point of clarification. It's not a point of order. [interjections] MR. DAY: Well, I want to finish my four minutes, but primarily I wanted to withdraw the statement that you referred to. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The person who is raising a point of order is entitled to make his point of order. The Chair is capable MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. The hon. Government House of understanding whether or not that point of order is in fact in Leader has withdrawn his comments made in reference . . . order. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Avonmore, would you complete your point of order? MR. DAY: I regret that I have overstepped. I withdraw. I withdraw the statement about idiocy. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you. I did in fact on page 1571 of the April 28 Hansard refer to the education of our young people, MR. ZWOZDESKY: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North has and a little further I also said: withdrawn the statement, and I accept his apology. I'm sure the What we're looking for here is to ensure that the proper amount of dollars are allocated, as has been in the past, so that we can indeed rest of our caucus does as well. educate better, so that we can provide our students with those sound Thank you. fundamentals that underscore a proper education, things that will prepare them to be able to make the difficult choices they have to MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you withdrawing yours at the same time? [make]. And I go on to talk about them being our future leaders. So I MR. ZWOZDESKY: I'm sorry. I will withdraw my untruth take with great exception the fact that this member stands in this comment. House and again spreads untruths about what this side of the House is trying to do. I'd like the Chairman to please ask him to MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you for that. retract that statement. Now, Edmonton-Centre, did you . . . Okay. Thank you. The hon. Government House Leader has four minutes, 50 seconds left in his speaking time, if he so chooses. [interjections] MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order. Order. The hon. Government House Leader. MR. DAY: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, 12:10 Debate Continued sir, you will rule whether it is a point of clarification or a point of order, and we will happily adjust to whatever your ruling is. MR. DAY: If the verbal assault from across the way could die However, the member opposite has shown his complete inability down to a dull roar, I'd be happy to conclude in about 30 seconds not just to be able to understand how this process works but even rather than punishing them with another four minutes. to listen. My words precisely were that in all these hours of Mr. Chairman, this subamendment sums up, is a snapshot, a debate I have not heard from members opposite one mention of microshot as it were of the entire debate that has taken place on education as applying to improving education for children. I said: Bill 19. It's a snapshot because it refers here to the fact that I have not heard one word. separate school districts have been eminently cared for, and that Mr. Chairman, on the point of order I still maintain that when is a reflection of the entire process that's gone into developing this you go through the 60 speeches that have been made and all the entire Bill over months and months, hours and hours, thousands hours of debate since April 12, you will find very little reference, and thousands of dollars for the purpose of improving education minute reference from members opposite about anything to do for our children. That's what we're about, and we're delighted with educating children. to see this stage of the debate draw to a close.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule on the purported points MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We now have before us a number of order. First of all, what we have is a difference of opinion as of considerations. First of all, we have the subamendment as to what was said, when it was said, did it mean this, or did it proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. May 17, 1994 Alberta Hansard 2041

[Motion on subamendment lost] Bracko Kirkland Taylor, N. Bruseker Leibovici Van Binsbergen MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we have before us the amendments as Carlson Massey White proposed by the hon. Minister of Education in the nine-page Collingwood Nicol Yankowsky document that you all have. Decore Percy Zariwny Dickson Sapers Zwozdesky [Motion on amendments carried] Hanson Point of Order Totals: For – 40 Against – 25 Decorum MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood [The sections of Bill 19 agreed to] rising on a point of order. MR. DAY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Bill be reported when MR. BENIUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like some clarifica- the committee rises and reports. tion. Can people vote when they're not sitting in their proper chairs? [Motion carried]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh. Hon. member, if it is a voice vote, they Bill 32 can shout where they're at, but when there's a standing vote, you Fuel and Tobacco Tax Statutes must stand in your place, and we've just had a voice vote. Amendment Act, 1994 Debate Continued MR. DINNING: Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this Bill at second reading. I advised the House at second reading of the Bill MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, now we have the Bill itself, that I would be presenting amendments, and I would ask that they wherever it is. On the Bill itself, Bill 19, School Amendment be now circulated. They are at the Clerk's Table. They are quite Act, 1994. simply to replace a printing error where we had proposed a ceiling of 400 cigarettes, or two cartons of cigarettes, and we are [Title and preamble agreed to] inserting the more rightful number of a thousand cigarettes, or five cartons, as had been suggested at second reading. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the Bill itself, is the committee agreed? Mr. Chairman, I think the Bill had a very thorough debate as to the principle and purpose behind it at second reading and would SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. ask all members of the Assembly to agree to those amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Provincial Treasurer has moved two amendments. The pages and others are circulating these. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. Are we ready to discuss? The hon. Member for Sherwood Park. MR. CHAIRMAN: Carried. Call in the members. MR. COLLINGWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell wonder if we could wait for a moment. The amendments are was rung at 12:13 a.m.] being circulated. We haven't had an opportunity yet to see them to determine whether or not any debate is warranted on the [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] particular amendments. [interjections]

For the motion: MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. It's quite proper to ask to wait until Ady Gordon Oberg the amendments are forthcoming before entering into debate. Amery Haley Pham Hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw, are you wanting to enter Burgener Havelock Renner debate? We already have Sherwood Park. Calahasen Hlady Rostad Clegg Jacques Severtson MR. HAVELOCK: No, thank you. I was actually helping the Coutts Jonson Smith Sergeant-at-Arms hand out the amendments, because I'm a team Day Laing Sohal player. Dinning Langevin Stelmach Dunford Magnus Taylor, L. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Evans Mar Thurber The question has been called. Are you ready for the question? Fischer McClellan Trynchy Forsyth McFarland West HON. MEMBERS: Question. Friedel Mirosh Woloshyn Fritz [Motion on amendment carried]

Against the motion: MR. N. TAYLOR: Before we go on, just a small question. I Abdurahman Henry Sekulic haven't been following right up on top of this, but I'm just Beniuk Hewes Soetaert wondering what the difference is, after this is all finished, 2042 Alberta Hansard May 17, 1994

between the taxes – I'm speaking to the minister. [interjection] HON. MEMBERS: Question. Pardon me. Through the Chair, yeah. I would like to ask the . . . [interjections] No, you voted on the amendment. Now [Title and preamble agreed to] I think you're asking for a vote on the main motion; aren't you? I want to ask . . . [interjections] Mr. Chairman . . . [The sections of Bill 32 agreed to]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair was remiss. The MR. DAY: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 32 be reported when Chair did not ask the question: are you ready for the question? the committee rises and reports. So the hon. Member for Redwater is perfectly within his rights. [Motion carried] 12:30 MR. N. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought so, but MR. DAY: I move that the committee rise and report. Red Deer-North is so used to jumping around, I guess, he just . . . [Motion carried] To the minister. What I wanted to know was: if this Bill passes – and it likely will – what is the difference between what [Mr. Clegg in the Chair] a carton of cigarettes will sell here versus what it sells in Saskatchewan and B.C.? In other words, are we setting up an MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has interprovincial war between each other? Is there any point in it? had under consideration certain Bills. The committee reports the In other words, I can see your taxes, but if they vary strongly following with some amendments: Bill 19 and Bill 32. The from the neighbouring provinces', you've got the same problem committee reports progress on the following: Bill 30 and Bill 34. as varying strongly from the U.S. then. I just wanted to know Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies of all amendments and what the variation would be. subamendments considered by the Committee of the Whole on this date for the official records of the Assembly. MR. DINNING: Mr. Chairman, a very good question. The four western provinces will continue to have federal tax rates levied MR. ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. against them of some $13.56 per carton of cigarettes. In the case All in favour of the report? of Ontario it will be $7.76 and in Quebec it's $7.23. The provincial taxes applied vary. They're outlined in the budgetary SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. document that I tabled in the Assembly on February 24. For the member's own sake, a carton of cigarettes in Alberta has $14 MR. ACTING SPEAKER: Opposed, if any? worth of provincial tax, B.C. is $22, Saskatchewan is $19.44, and Manitoba is $18.68. So we will continue to be lower. This Bill SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. does not in any way alter or adjust the rates of taxation. MR. ACTING SPEAKER: Carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now are we ready for the question? [At 12:37 a.m. on Wednesday the Assembly adjourned to 1:30 p.m.]